The URL can be used to link to this page

1990-12-03 TOWN BOARD MEETING DECEMBER 3rd, 1990 7:40 p.m. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT STEPHEN BORGOS-SUPERVISOR MARILYN POTENZA-COUNCILMAN RONALD MONTESI-COUNCILMAN BETTY MONAHAN-COUNCILMAN BOARD MEMBER ABSENT . GEORGE KUROSAKA-COUNCILMAN TOWN ATTORNEY PAUL DUSEK TOWN OFFICIALS Kathleen Kathe, Paul Naylor, Dave Hatin PRESS: G.F. Post Star, Moreau Sun PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE LED BY COUNCILMAN POTENZA SUPERVISOR BORGOS opened meeting .... PUBLIC HEARING - AMENDING ORDINANCE 23 - OVER 65 EXEMPTION NOTICE SHOWN SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Is there anyone here who wishes to speak for or against or ask questions about a fairly dramatically increased set of exemptions for individuals who are over 65 as of the taxable status date and in fact any individuals whose reached the age of 65 during the year, any time during the year 1991? It's a new provision of the law that we're proposing to enact. This would then grant a 50 percent exemption to individuals who earn up to 15,000 dollars per year, individuals over 65 who earn up to 15,000 dollars per year and the graduated scale, reducing eventually to 20 percent reduction for individuals who earn between 18,000 dollars and 18,600 dollars. This is designed to help the senior citizens and hopefully if thi is adopted by the Town Board it would then be adopted by Warren County and by the Schoc Boards in the various School Districts. A significant improvement in the Senior Citizer- situation. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-I would like to introduce it. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Well we've got to wait a minute. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-We have to hold the public hearing. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-We'll see if anyone wants to comment. You should know, the only comment that I've heard is from, some people have said, although this is helping the seniors it may be helping some of those who could well afford to pay. My only response to that is, I think that, at least we're attempting to help the majority of those people who need the help and if some people have been fortunate enough to accumulate a little extra wealth, by virtue of the fact that they've reached their good age, I think that they've probably have contributed enough to society along the way. So I could certainly support the concept of this for everyone regardless of where they are. Some people have wealth but not income and that's just the way things happen. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Supervisor Borgos, has the County and the School in the past adopted the same? I'm just curious. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-The last two changes I believe they have adopted something exactly like ours. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Okay. -- SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Prior to that, there were several variations floating around but we did send the letter the last two times to those governing agencies and they did see fit to follow our direction. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Also this is, the cap is 18,000 ... SUPERVISOR BORGOS-18,600. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-So we're talking about senior citizens, someone that's reached the autumn of their years, that is earning 18,000 or less being given tax consideration in our community. That's not so much money that they're living off the fat of the land. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-I talked with the Assessor about the impact of this. Actually she brought it to my attention, I am pleased that she did. It's somewhere between 1/2 of 1 percent and 1 percent that would have to then be spread to the other members of the community. So it's a relatively small amount. At least that's the anticipation at this moment. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Well Steve if you work it out in dollars aand cents, I remember our tax on a 100,000 dollar house is 44 dollars. Am I correct? SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Town tax. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Town tax, alright. At 18,600, you would only be allowed a 20 percent of that tax abatement, .so that's 8 dollars and it rarely is not very much in what cost of living is today, 18,600 is not a great amount of income. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-The only place the impact will be significant is for people who get a 50 percent reduction on their school tax which is currently substantial many times, the Town tax. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Yes, but that's going to be less, they're going to have to make, well we've only got 45 percent and at 45 percent it's going to be less than 15,600, it really isn't going to help those people that have very much of an income when you come right down to brass tax. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Any further comments from any member of the public or members of the Board? Hearing none ... PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED RESOLUTION TO AMEND ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 23 PROVIDING FOR SENIOR CITIZENS TAX EXEMPTION RESOLUTION NO. 6771, 1990, Introduced by Ronald Montesi who moved for its adoption, seconded by Betty Monahan. WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury, by Ordinance No. 23, as the same has been amended from time to time, provides for a 50% exemption from Town taxes for owners 65 years of age and older, whose income does not exceed $12,025.00 per year, and a lesser pro-rated exemption from Town taxes for the aforesaid owners whose incomes vary from $12,025.00 to a maximum of $15,025.00, as more specifically set forth in said Ordinance No. 23, as amended, and WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury has been authorized by the New York State Legislature to increase the income limitation for the partial exemption from Town Real Property Taxes for persons 65 years of age and older, and WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury may only increase the income limitation for the partial exemption from Town taxes upon the adoption of an Ordinance or a Local Law following a public hearing, and WHEREAS, the said Town Board desires to increase the income limitation applicable to the aforesaid tax exemption and make other additional amendments to the said Ordinance, and WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury duly called a public hearing for the consideration of the aforesaid amendment and duly gave notice thereof required by law, and WHEREAS, said public hearing was held by this Town Board of the Town of Queensbury at the Activities Center, 531 Bay Road, Queensbury, New York on December 3, 1990, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that Ordinance No. 23 of the Town of Queensbury is hereby amended to read as follows: ti ORDINANCE TO AMEND ORDINANCE NO. 23 AS LAST AMENDED IN JULY, 1989 This Ordinance amends Ordinance No. 23, entitled, "An Ordinance Providing for a Partial Tax Exemption of Real Property Owned by Certain Persons With Limited Income who are 65 Years of Age or Over, Pursuant to Section 467 of the Real Property Tax Law of the State of New York," as the same has been amended from time to time. BE IT ENACTED AS FOLLOWS: I. Section 2, Paragraph (a) is amended to reduce the length of time by which it is necessary to file an application for the exemption and said Section shall read as follows: (a) The owner or all of the owners of real property seeking qualification for exemption must file an application annually in the Assessor's Office on forms prescribed by the Town Board to be furnished by the appropriate assessing authority and shall furnish the information and be executed in the manner required or prescribed in such forms and shall be filed in such Assessor's Office on or before the appropriate taxable status date. II. Section 2, Paragraph (b) is amended to raise the income level below whic owners of real property can qualify for senior citizens exemption to $15,000.00, and the same is amended to read as follows: (b) The income of the owner or combined income of the owners must not exceed $15,000.00 for the income tax year immediately preceding the date of making the application for exemption. Income tax year shall mean the 12 month period for which the owners filed a federal, personal income tax return, or if no such return is filed, the calendar year. III. Section 2, Paragraph (c) is amended to reduce the number of months for which title to the property must be vested in the owners and is amended to read as follows: (c) Title to the property must be vested in the owner or, if more than one, in all owners for at least 24 consecutive months prior to the date that the application is filed. IV. Section 3 is amended to raise the income level below which owners of real property can qualify for senior citizens exemptions on a pro rata basis, as follows: 3. A further exemption is provided to increase the maximum income eligibility level for a senior citizens exemption is provided as follows: ANNUAL INCOME PERCENTAGE ASSESSED VALUATION EXEMPT FROM TAXATION More than $15,000.00 but less than $15,600.00 45 per centum $15,600.00 or more, but less than $16,200.00 40 per centum $16,200.00 or more, but less than $16,800.00 35 per centum $16,800.00 or more, but less than $17,400.00 30 per centum $17,400.00 or more, but less than $18,000.00 25 per centum $18,000.00 or more, but less than $18,600.00 20 per centum Section No. 3 is also amended to re-number said Section to Section No. 4. V. A new Section No. 5 is added to the aforesaid Ordinance to read as follows: . Not withstanding any other provision of this Ordinance or Law, any person otherwise qualifying under this Section shall not be denied the exemption under this Sectio if he becomes 65 years of age after appropriate taxable status date and befor December 31st of the same year. and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that said amendment and change will take effect immediately, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED,' that the said amendment be entered in the minutes of the December 3, 1990 meeting of the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury, and that the Town Clerk publish a certified copy of the amendment of the Ordinance in the official newspaper of the Town and publish such notices as may be required by law. Duly adopted this 3rd day December, 1990, by the following vote: Ayes: Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos Noes: None Absent: Mr. Kurosaka COUNCILMAN MONAHAN asked Kathleen Kathe to give a copy to Eleanor to post at the Senior Activity Center. PUBLIC HEARING - AMENDMENT- ZONING ORDINANCE NOTICE SHOWN SUPERVISOR BORGOS-This hearing is now open. This deals with the proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, including the creation of a special zone. It's my opinion and I'll listen to the Board for their reaction, but because of the stormy night, because of the fact that I really did expect a room full of people, I would propose that we listen to everyone whose come but then after everyone who is here has spoken, that we recess this meeting, this public hearing and keep it open until some future date that can be mutually agreed upon and properly advertised, so that we can then hear from all people in favor of or opposed to this project in any way. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I think that is a very excellent idea Steve and a very fair idea. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-I'm concerned that a number of people who may have wanted to be here tonight, wouldn't be, but certainly all comments made this evening would be part of the record, it would be available then in written form as quickly as we can get the minutes done. I don't know where the Clerk is at the moment but we're not too far behind I'm sure. With that said, is there anyone who would like to volunteer to start the meeting off? We would like each person who wishes to, to speak once before we have a second chance, give everyone the chance to be heard first. If you would like to speak, please raise your hand to be recognized, come forward, state your name, your representation if any, your address, then say whatever you'd like. Who will be first? I see Mr. Stewart. ROBERT STEWART-For the record, my name is Robert Stewart, I'm here representing the Pyramid Companies of Glens Falls in connection with the proposed rezoning and the interrelated proposed expansion of their shopping mall. I'm not going to I think, go through a full presentation tonight. The Board has seen it and aware of it, it has been indicated with documents concerning it so I think you are basically pretty familiar with it. There's just one opening comment that I would like to make in view of some comments that I received as I arrived here tonight. When we first took a look at how to proceed with this matter because we realized that we would need some relief from the Zoning Ordinance if this expansion were going to go forward. There were 2 or 3 alternatives that we considered. One would be to try to get what ever relief we needed through the kinds of variances, through the Zoning Board of Appeals. Because of a mistake that was made when the ordinance was passed back in 1988, the grounds for area variances are really non existent and that's an error that I believe is now being attended to and corrected. But without getting into detail, that avenue was not available to us. So we turned then to the concept of seeking some amendments to the Zoning Ordinance to meet our needs. That gave us 2 options. One was try to amend the existing Plaza Commercial Zone that we were in and the other was the approach to that we selected to take which was to attempt to create a new zone specific for this property, specific for the project and attached to it our application for what we what to plan to do so the Board can see exactly what they were ' being asked to approve and exactly how it would relate to this particular site. We chose that later course because of our concern that if we appeared before this Board for the same type of amendments, essentially, exactly the same, to Plaza Commercial, that this Board might be perfectly delighted with the proposed amendment and the project and how those two would blend together on this particular site. But that this Board might also be deeply concerned that if in approving this project. which you might favor, you would open pandora's box but amending it in other zones where soil conditions were different, traffic conditions were different, all sorts of things were different and that you had lost control of the situation. That's why we felt that this approach was preferable to changing all the Plaza Commercial Zones in Town without you having the benefit of seeing what particular projects might be proposed to those zones and how these amendments would help or would hurt those particular zones. With that by way of background, I believe you are all familiar with the fact that we proposed to acquire property adjacent to us, that we would define and enclose shopping center, create a large 25 or larger acre zone which would give such ability of parking and design, unloading and so on, and we therefore make and propose those amendments also related to parking. Permeability, particularly I would address briefly because this is one of the areas where this particular site in my judgement is significantly different from other Plaza Commercial's for example. We are on an almost incredible sand bed. The sand there is 20, 30 feet deep and deeper I guess in certain areas. So it has enormous permeability. We also have retention basin that has been there for years, that can accept the waters from large storms, put most of it back into the ground but if more than that arise it can bleed out into the storm drainage system, the excess at a limited measured rate, so its not to overwhelm the storm drainage system. In the specific application that is before you tonight and that you've seen as to how the project is actually going to be placed in the ground, you see the provisions have been made under the parking lots to recharge water back into the sand soil, so that we are in an unique position to control our water, put it back into our site ... (either or even)?? with 20 percent permeability which may or may not be the situation in some other zone. So these are the type of things that _ I just wanted to bring to your attention. I didn't want you to think that we had not thought about those other alternatives. We had abated them and felt this was the wisest place to go because it gave this Board the maximum amount of control. Unless the Board has any specific questions at this point, that would serve as my opening statement. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Bob, I have a couple of questions. On page 3 of your EAF, it's got total contiguous acreage under(owner?) control by the project sponsor, 56.31 acres. Is that acreage the acreage that the owner owns now or what it proposes to own if, goes through with all the purchases of the other 2 pieces of property? MR. STEWART-It is acreage that we own now, acreage that we are committed to buy and it also includes acreage of which you have the control of, what you can tell us and that is the Town land. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Okay, so this is not acreage that they presently own, its what they hope to own. MR. STEWART-Well not hope, we are under contract. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Well you're not under contract with the Town yet. MR. STEWART-Except for the Town. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Yes. Is there any provision to clean the water that's draining from the roofs and the parking lots before it goes back into the underground aquifer? MR. STEW ART-Alright, I would ask Mr. Myers I think to address that, he's more skilled than I am on that type of thing. John could you handle that? JOHN MEYER-I am principal of John Meyer Consulting, we are consulting engineers representing Pyramid Companies. The catch basins will collect sediment coming off the parking lots and the drainage that currently goes into the detention basin filters out through the bottom of the detention basin has it has been for the last 18 or 20 years. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-What I'm asking, is there any cleaning device within that basin or will some of the sediments like the oil and etcetera, have a chance to go into the underground aquif er? MR. MEYER-Well that is filtered out now in the basins. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-That's what I asked, thank you. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-John, I jog pretty regularly by there from the Y (YMCA) and in the summer season when those lagoons, if you will are dry, I have never seen an awful lot of sedimentation in there. I mean there's some, I guess you would call gray dust on the bottom of it, but I've never seen an oily slick or anything that comes from, I assume, all of those lagoons are fed by the catch basins out in the parking lot. MR. MEYER-That's correct and that's essentially the way the situation is and there is a reason for that. The lot is very well maintained. Its swept and vacuumed several times a week. Papers are picked up and its properly maintained. It's better maintained than most parking lots and certainly better maintained than thO streets and highways in this area, simply because SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Our Highway Superintendent is listening to you. MR. MEYER-State highways. 3s_S_ G SUPERVISOR BORGOS-State highways, yes, let the record show, that was amended. MR. MEYER-No., it's been shown and it's true, they have the budget. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Thank you. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-While Mr. Meyer is up there, maybe this question should be directed to him. Total anticipated water uses for days, 6,360 gallons per day, does the mall intend to use any water saving devices within their bathrooms, etcetera, as they make some changes? MR. MEYER-Yes, all the new fixtures that would be put into the mall, on any expansion to the mall and on any rehabilitation to the mall, by state law are required to have the water conserving devices. That automatically drops the water conception by 20 percent. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-So has that been figured in the 6,360 or should we take 20 percent away from that? MR. MEYER-It's included in the 6,000. I would indicate to you that the 6,000 already is about 40 percent less than what the State requirement is when you figure a brand new mall and the reason for that is that the water conserving devices are being used and they're showing a big improvement. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Thank you. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Thank you. Do you have more or do you wish to have someone else go next? MR. STEWART-No, whoever you wish. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-You're just going to sit there ... okay, it's alright. We try to reasonably unstructured about this, within the limits of law, be comfortable, relaxed. Who would like to be next? DAVID KENNY-I own the Adirondack Factory Outline Mall, Town of Queensbury. I would like to pass this out to the Board members so they can see what I'm saying. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-I got a copy late this afternoon from somewhere so I have read it already. MR. KENNY-Some of the concerns in this have been addressed. But I'll just read it for the public and I would like to have it put into the record. I'm here to voice my support for the expansion of Aviation Mall by the Pyramid Corporation. I understand the problems that exist in the retail industry and realize that in order for Aviation Mall to remain competitive with the number of other commencinable malls in the area,. they must expand to meet the needs of today's consumer. Aviation Mall/Pyramid Corporation has been a very good resident for the Town of Queensbury. They have added to the tax base, produced additional sales tax revenue and supplied the area with a great number of jobs. Therefore I would like to see the Town Board and any other Board involved in this work, work in a diligent matter to see the successful completion of Aviation Mall/Pyramid Corporation expansion. I sincerely mean that because I do think it's something needed in the Town. With that in mind, I have reservations about creating a new zone for Aviation Mall property. I think the Town should focus it's attention on amending the requirements for the Plaza Commercial Zone, which is the zone where the mall is located. The Town already has approximately 27 different zones and I think by creating a new zone, we will slow down the approval process and also create alot of confusion. After reviewing the requirements of Aviation Mall project, I believe the project can receive all necessary approvals if the requirements of Plaza Commercial Zones are updated. One, off street parking, section 7.071, the first requirement, the size of parking space, we could add a criteria for the enclosed shopping center without changing the mall zone. I would support changing the size of parking spaces of 10 feet to 9 feet wide for all plaza commercial area. Nine feet wide is plenty wide enough for a parking space and this would reduce the amount of blacktop and therefore increase the permeability area. By the way, I would also encourage the Town to review all zones at some point to change the parking requirements to 9 feet. Off street parking schedule, section 7.072, minimum number of parking places required, we could add enclosed shopping mall over certain square footage to this section. I feel that since they have documented that they only 5 spaces per 1,000 square feet, this could be added to it to meet their requirements. Number 3, Off street loading, section 7.073, 1 feel this section could be amended to include enclosed shopping malls over a certain square footage to address their needs without having to change the zone. I don't know what all their needs are for off street loading but I'm sure they're aware of that. Number 4, add to definition 97, a C, which would include an enclosed shopping mall over a certain square footage, let this define ... area to address their concerns in this area with regards to the number of parking spaces. With all the above taken into account, the real problem with the Aviation Mall/Pyramid Company, has the amount of permeability required by the Plaza Commercial Zone. I served on the Planning Committee and tried to recall to the best of my knowledge, we tried to address as many concerns as possible, one of which was to increase the permeable area in the Town. The end result with increasing the permeable area in the Plaza Commercial Zone, I feel, has created an undo hardship on existing development to meet that 30 percent permeability. The businesses that are located in the Plaza Commercial Zone are Aviation Mall, Grand Union, ... , Northway Plaza, Shop Rite, and a few other businesses, and after reviewing the conditions of the Plaza Commercial Zone, I feel all these sites, I feel are already fully developed and could not meet the 30 percent permeability requirement, therefore making expansion impossible. So I would recommend changing this back to the 20 percent for the whole zone. . When we created that Plaza Commercial Zone, we were trying to encourage growth in the Town and not create an undo hardship on new businesses coming to Town or discourage the growth of existing businesses. I would encourage that the businesses in this zone and all other zones to meet the permeability requirement by placing greenery area along the highways and entrances way to the business — which would have a good visibility to the public. When we rezoned the Town a few years ago, we followed the lot lines of properties for any rezoning. Aviation Mall is looking to purchase 2 additional pieces of, additional parcels, one which is Highway Commercial and the other is Park Recreational. These parcels are contiguous to the Aviation Mall property, a lot line adjustment could amend the zone of these parcels and make them Plaza Commercial thereby addressing these concerns. I sincerely believe that we should address the concerns that presently exist with the Plaza Commercial Zone instead of creating a new zone. We should not try to correct the problems of one zone by adding another. I do not feel that we need a new zone, especially one that is 25 acre zone. That would discriminate against other people because they must have 25 acres of land in order to meet the requirements of the zone. The shopping center which I own is an enclosed mall according to definition proposed for an enclosed mall. This center is approximately 80,000 square feet with 70,000 square feet of leasable space. This property is located on 6 acres and by the definition proposed for an enclosed mall, I would not be able to meet these requirements, therefore putting an undo hardship on myself and on this piece of property. I feel there are many small developers like myself that would like to come into the Town and build an enclosed shopping mall from 50 to 200,000 square especially with the climate we have in the north country. The way the current proposal is drafted none of these would be allowed unless they had 25 acres of land. Also if you look at the way the currently proposal is drafted, it states there should be 25 acre zone and in that proposal it also states, that only 12,000 square feet of building would be allowed. It does not define that this is per acre. So therefore if I own 25 acres of land, I would only be allowed to build 12,000 square feet of space on this property. I think this is why I'm concerned, that a new zone would just create more problems because it really has not been looked at thoroughly. I sincerely believe that the existing zone, Plaza Commercial has been looked at thoroughly and does address all the concerns of Aviation Mall with just a few modifications. One concern that I'm sure has not been addressed, excuse me, by the way I understand this has been resolved, it is 12,000 square feet of building per acre on 25 acres of land, this would allow only 300,000 square feet of building space. I'm not sure but I do not think that this would help the Aviation Mall project. The way I understand the current zoning, the density requirement under each zone, is the total amount of square footage that can be built on any piece of property regardless of its use, whereas the parking requirements for the business are figured on the use of the building and this is with the new gross 1 area definition for an enclosed mall would be considered. With this in mind, I think the Aviation Mall possibly meets, without knowing all the details, if you change the 12,000 square feet of building back to 15,000 square feet which it was before we rezone this piece of property. Not being an attorney I do not know if the proper notification has been published for the change of zone. Since it is in effect not just creating one new zone, it is changing all commercial zones within the Town, thereby affecting the whole master plan. Also not being an attorney, since this new zone would be for one particular business and on one use within the Town and having a major impact on the whole Town, I believe this could be considered spot zoning. I believe updating the Plaza Commercial Zone is a much more efficient way to handle this matter. I've had some of my concerns answered since I drafted this letter, I've spoken to Mr. Stewart and he's tried and I've spoke to Paul, but I'm not sure that they all have been. I guess, I think creating a new 25 acre zone, is just complicating the process. Their main concern is the permeability area which I was on the Advisory Committee, and I do think we did everybody in that zone an injustice because they can not meet this test. Us as an Advisory Committee or the Planning Committee or whatever you want to call us and even possibly the Town Board, did an injustice in creating this hardship for everybody in that zone. I don't want to penalize Pyramid Mall, I want to see their expansion go. If you look at there, the difference between section 4.020-p and 4.020 that is existing, the only difference is the 20 percent permeability from 30 and there's 2 other differences. One makes it from 200 feet width to 800 feet width and the other increased it from 1 acre to 25 acres. So two of their changes are making it more restrictive and one is making it a little less restrictive, the 20 percent permeability. I don't think we need the more restrictive 25 acres zone and an 800 acre width in this Town. It was never addressed at any Advisory Committee meetings, we never thought that we would need something like that. The Plaza Commercial Zone that exists, we specifically said that area was the heaviest developed area in the Town. It was fully built out, would always be the major shopping area in the Town. I guess I just don't see why we need a new zone on top of the existing zone. Actually what we're doing is creating an overlay zone for the zone because that is all one zone as far as I'm concerned, it's a shopping area for the` Town of Queensbury and it's the major thrust of the center of Town. So to set one section from another, I just don't think is necessary. Thank you. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Thank you for your comments. Any Board members have any questions or comments while Mr. Kenny is here? I have just a couple of notes that I made so we don't have to come back to them later. You've indicated that you think that this will slow down the process by creating a new zone. I think just the opposite at this stage of the game, I think we've advertised and this has been reviewed already by the Planning Department, by the Planning Board, by Warren County Planning Board. It's already 90 percent of the way through the process. To stop now and go back and change the zone would require the same process to change the other criteria. _ MR. KENNY-That statement was meant, it would slow down the process of new development. It may speed up this, its so far gone along on this route but once you have this new zone, its something new for the Planning Department. If I come in, what zone do I have to build in? COUNCILMAN MONTESI-If you have 25 acres you can build in this. MR. KENNY-But can I build an enclosed mall, I've asked this question, on 10 acres, they say yes. The way the enclosed mall parking definition reads, it does not stipulate anything other than a building, shopping ... SUPERVISOR BORGOS-That's another thing I'm coming to, I think, certainly it's not the intention of this Board to shut down any of these proposed new malls of 50,000 to 200,000 square feet and I don't believe that's the way the language reads. It think simply if someone reaches the new threshold as set here, they would be entitled to the specific changes in the regulations. But people wishing to construct smaller ones, I don't think have been excluded. MR. KENNY-I can sympathize with that but unless that is thoroughly stated in the new zoning regulations because once you define an enclosed mall to me, you, I understand what you're saying and I'll have no problem with you and this current Board but 5 years down the road when somebody new comes in with a new Board up here and a new Planning Board and everybody new, they're going to'say wait a second, we have a zone for an enclosed mall, the other zone, the Highway zone is for Plazas, not enclosed malls. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Don't we still have shopping center or some such other ... MR. KENNY-Shopping center yes, but you've also now put a definition of enclosed mall. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Right, take your facility for instance, that's an enclosed mall but it's also a shopping center because I think you can enter almost all the stores if not all of them from outside, is that right? MR. KENNY-But according to the definition of the enclosed mall that you're creating for this zone, and you have here what it is, I meet that definition. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Except for size. COUNCILMAN POTENZA-Except for the acreage. MR. KENNY-Well it doesn't say size. On your definition it doesn't say size, all it says is enclosed mall definition ... SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Wouldn't you also be ... MR. KENNY-Shall be architecturally, connecting most of the stores with inside access. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Don't you also meet the definition of shopping center? MR. KENNY-There is no definition of shopping center per say. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-There is none. MR. KENNY-Well there is but it's retail. I guess my point being is supposing it was, and it was answered today by the Building Deparfrnent, that they did not see, so that concern possibly has been addressed. But I would like to see it really clarified and include enclosed mall as a use in every other commercial zone then. If we're creating an enclosed mall zone, I would like to see the wording, what allowable uses in an Highway Commercial zone or in a Plaza Commercial zone, I can say because that's where it's define, Shopping Mall/Plaza. I would like it to say Shopping Mall/Enclosed Mall/Plaza. To define an enclosed mall because once you create that definition, enclosed mall, are we saying we want enclosed malls on certain pieces of property and only on certain pieces of property. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Would you be happy if we were looking at, what was that second term you used? You had enclosed mall there, no, shopping mall ... MR. KENNY-Shopping Mall/Enclosed Mall ... SUPERVISOR BORGOS-What if we had Shopping Mall, 25 acre. MR. KENNY-No, no, you have that ... SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Does the word enclose bother you? MR. KENNY-You have that in the new zone you're creating. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Right but you seem to be saying that we already have shopping mall, we already have something else ... MR. KENNY-1 don't know that that defines enclosed mall, shopping mall can be considered, you know, the Northway Plaza considers themselves as a shopping mall. You know my concern is the enclosed mall criteria that you've created and it doesn't define that in only one zone. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Dave, how did you, when you came forward with your shopping mall or enclosed mall on 6 acres, how did you present that to the Planning Board? As an enclosed mall, as a shopping center or as a strip mall? MR. KENNY-As a shopping mall because that's the definition we have in the Town codes, we didn't have enclosed mall at that time. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-So by including in the slash definitions an enclosed mall, the criteria for enclosed mall, what this Board I think is saying is that the only time we're going to look at an enclosed mall per say with certain considerations, is that if you have 25 acres of land or more. In other words, a meaningful, not that your's is not meaningful, a meaningful impact on an a particular area- of 25 acres of more and if it's an enclosed mall, they're going to be given certain criteria that they would have to meet and the first one is that they've got to have 25 acres of land. Now if we put slash in yours, enclosed mall, what we would be saying is, just clarifying that anything less than 25 acres, it's possible that you could have a mall, a strip mall, a shopping center or an enclosed mall or enclosed plaza under 25 acres but the criteria is still going to be what it is today. MR. KENNY-Correct. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-So all you're doing is inserting the fact that less than 25 acres, its possible to have an enclosed mall. MR. KENNY-Right and 1 think that has to be clearly defined. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-For purposes of clarification so that if somebody says I don't have 25 acres, I'm not looking for all of the.considerations of 9 foot wide parking or 20 percent permeability. What I'm looking for is, I want to go to site plan review and I want you to know that even though I don't have 25 acres, I want to put an enclosed mall in. MR. KENNY-That's correct. That's one concern. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-But I don't think that's his only concern. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Well I mean that's ... MR. KENNY-Its allowable use concern in the zone. . COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-1 think one of the crocks of the things are and I think the Town is going to be in a hard position to defend themselves from this because of discrimination, that you're letting an enclosed mall, at least on this site be 20 percent permeable and you're requiring everybody else to be 30 percent permeable. You're requiring a different size parking _ slot for this particular enclosed mall and you're making every other shopping area in this Town have a larger parking slot and I think you'retgoing to have an awful hard time defending that reasoning in court. MR. KENNY-Well I can thoroughly agree with them. I think they've documented that they only need 5 ... COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-No, no, I'm saying, I'm not talking about them, I'm talking about if we treat them different or if we treat the other shopping areas in Town and say differently than this particular enclosed mall, we're going to have a hard time defending treating the other shopping areas differently. MR. KENNY-I think the Pyramid Corporation has addressed most of those concerns because they are different being that they are a major regional mall. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-So big. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-You mean to tell me that you as a mall owner are going to be content to put in 10 feet wide parking slot, . . . have to put in 10 parking slot. i COUNCILMAN POTENZA-He's already done it. MR. KENNY-I've done that. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-1 know you have but you know what I'm saying. MR. KENNY-I mean quite frankly I've said in my letter that I fully support the 9 foot wide for this zone, then you wouldn't, the Plaza Commercial Zone and I also stated that I would like to see this address. We addressed this on the Advisory Committee and we were very close, we didn't know which way to go and with all the people coming out about more green space and less black top, its possible we made a mistake in that area, maybe the whole Town should have 9 foot wide zones. Cars are smaller today, I think the Plaza Commercial Zone should be changed right away and if this new zone is adopted, I have no problem with that because that's the right thing. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-That was my whole point, that we're not treating everybody the same. MR. KENNY-Well, possibly we'll address the other people later. Maybe there should be other adjustments to the Zoning Ordinance. This issue is the.issue that is up before us today, I think they've demonstrated-most of their concerns are valid concerns. I don't have a problem with any of them, I'm 100 percent for the project. I don't see the difference in creating a, we have a Plaza Commercial Zone and we're creating an Enclosed Mall Zone that is identical except for 3 issues. Twenty-five acres which is more restrictive, 800 feet width which is more restrictive and the 20 percent permeability. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Are you telling us perhaps that again very clearly that you don't mind this project or this proposal or all the dimensions they've used but at some point perhaps as quickly as we get through with this or even now, we should be thinking about making changes throughout the Town in all the commercial zones. Those requests haven't come to us before. MR. KENNY-No, I think those things should be constantly looked at. But I guess my concern is why are we creating a more restrictive zone. The 20 percent permeability I believe, every other property in that zone that's existing today, there's only one Plaza Commercial in the Town, is that one area, none of them, right now Shop Rite, just got a variance I believe for that same issue. If Grand Union wanted to build tomorrow, they would need a variance and if Price Chopper wanted to build tomorrow, they would need it. The buildings were built 10 years ago under the sky lines of the 20 percent rule. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-So are you recommending that we should look at that change for all the others? MR. KENNY-I think you should look at that change for that zone, not for all the others. The others, on the Planning Committee, on the Advisory Committee, we addressed unbuilt areas of the Town. We're not creating undo hardship on myself up there, when I came for my application, I knew I had to have 30 percent, if I was there before that. It was raw land. We can't do something about property that's fully developed. What we did as a committee, we did, we created a hardship on, they can't change their use on their property anymore without getting a variance because they don't meet that 30 percent rule, that whole zone. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Number 1, we could grandfather the existing Plaza Commercials with the 20 percent permeability. That would solve that ... MR. KENNY-And that would solve their problem also. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-And solve your concern too. MR. KENNY-Then we wouldn't need a new zone. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Well for that. Now parking you're saying ... cle O r MR. KENNY-Parking is not a zone change. Parking is an amendment to the parking requirements. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Let me just get something right. Do you think and you went through it on the Advisory Committee, do you think that 9 feet and maybe you're letter says it, 9 feet is sufficient? MR. KENNY-Yes. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Okay. MR. KENNY-Yes and the only zone change, the zone change is the only thing, let's get this straight, all their parking requirements the loading, the number of parking spaces has nothing to do with the zone change. The zone change, section 4.020-P they have, addresses the permeability area, the width and the amount of the acreage needed. Two of them more restrictive and one is reducing the permeability area. That is why we are creating this new zone. We're not creating this new zone to give them more parking, all you do is put a definition of enclosed mall in the zoning regs over so many square feet and put the number of parking regulations for that per square footage of gross leasable space. That's not creating a new zone, all it does is define parking for the Town. Their off street parking, those are all adjustments to the use. But the zone itself is telling you what can be built on the land and the zone that's there now allows what they have. I think their main concern is the permeability. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Let me ask you a question, you were on the Citizen's Advisory Committee? MR. KENNY-Yes I was. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Can you tell us if during the course of your deliberations, you actually considered the alternative of creating a special zone for a large shopping center like this? MR. KENNY-Yes, Plaza Commercial, that's why that is different than the Highway Commercial. That one zone that we considered all the same, that one area of Town. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-But did you ever say, gee there's one monster shopping center up there, we ought to have a separate zone for that? MR. KENNY-No we did not. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-That's what I was wondering. If you thought of that and considered it and rejected it, but what I'm hearing you say is that you didn't look at it. So I was just wondering if this something that is new and has come to our attention and that's probably a good reason for having a new zone perhaps. I've got to ask Paul questions to get to the heart of the matter. MR. KENNY-I guess, I really one person to answer that question, I myself do not think it, I don't think you need a new zone for each type of business. That's what, I mean we have 27 zones in the Town and that's when I refer to as the Planning process, is going to take longer. This particular project is going to be burdened possibly, hopefully not. Hopefully by making a few modifications to the zone, how long it will take, I don't know. I mean quite frankly, you know, I'm not against this new zone, I'm just, I think it hasn't been reviewed properly. What I'm against is the condition of why it's being done. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Well we're still in the review process now, that's what this public hearing is all about. My concern is, if you say you're not opposed to the project and I certainly am not opposed to the project. MR. KENNY-I'm not. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-I would like to see this go forward because it's gone so far now but I'm hearing what you're saying about the reaction to the other types of businesses and I would think we could make another step. MR. KENNY-Well one of my recommendations, I guess my recommendation than would be to create this new zone, eliminate the 25 in front of it, make it a 1 acre enclosed mall zone, make it, change the 800 back to 200 feet, so that the only difference between this and the Plaza Commercial zone is the amount of the permeability area and then in the future change the Plaza Commercial, get rid of it and make this all one zone. That would be my recommendation. SUPERVISOR BORG OS-Interesting comment. MR. KENNY-Go ahead with this, make a few modifications so we can create that one zone to meet this rather than make it impossible and have 2 zones within a half mile of each other addressing each other concern. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Let me stop you for just a second and ask our Town Attorney. Mr. Kenny has proposed using lot line adjustments to change zones, is that permissible? I didn't think that that was permissible to change zones. I've seen it done to change actually lot lines. But he's proposing here to have a lot line adjustment, actually change the zone of a piece of property. ATTORNEY DUSEK-You can't go through a subdivision process or rearrange a lot line to recreate a new zone. The zone is where it is and even if the property boundary line should change, that won't effect it, if that's what your question. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-That zone stays, that's my question. ATTORNEY DUSEK-The only way that a zone will change in a given area, is if the Town Board actually changes the lines themselves. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-I thought so. MR. KENNY-I'm talking about the Town Board changing the line, a lot line adjustment, what they are. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-But I think what the attorney is saying, then we would have perhaps a new property line, a piece of that property still would be in the wrong zone. MR. KENNY-But the Town Board has the authority to change that zone with the lot line adjustment, is what he's saying. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Expand a zone with an amendment. MR. KENNY-Yes. ATTORNEY DUSEK-The Board certainly can, that's was saying, the Board can certainly ... SUPERVISOR BORGOS-We would have to go through this whole process though. ATTORNEY DUSEK-Yes, you would have to go through a total rezoning process to change the line. MR. KENNY-Yes, what you're going through. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-But we would have to start all over from square one to do it your way. I think essentially that's what happening anyway. It's a lot line adjustment, new land is being acquired, now it's proposed to go into this zone instead of your Plaza Commercial zone. MR. KENNY-It's a commercial zone and I guess what I would like to see, is then, this zone, the only change rather than make it any way more restrictive. Not to create a new zone, no matter what you call it, I don't think that's been called enclosed mall, it could be called another zone, and just address the 20 percent permeability and then in the future, the very near future, look at incorporating the existing Plaza Commercial Zone into that new zone and get rid of Plaza Commercial Zone. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Let me ask you two other questions, you've indicated that you're not sure the proper notification has been publishes for a change of zone. Can we get an opinion from our Attorney? Next to the last paragraph. ATTORNEY DUSEK-As far as the change of zone, the ad does refer to, not only the amendments to the article, to the zoning ordinance but also specifically does refer to 3 different parcels that are proposed to be rezoned, so I don't know ... MR. KENNY-My question on that is that it says as a change of zone in this particular area but in no way does it state in that article that it possibly has an effect on the existing Highway Commercial and Plaza Commercial zones in the Town which I feel it does. Now that's my opinion. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Okay. MR. KENNY-And what we're saying is we're creating a new zone and we're leaving everything else in Town the same way it is, that is not true. I think, I feel that way, I should say. Like I say, I've had interpretations from the Town Attorney, from the Building Inspector that say that they believe that I could continue to do what I am doing. But also at the same time, I had a conservation with the Town Attorney that wasn't sure, maybe I would get the parking requirements because I am an enclosed mall under the definition and no where does it separate the two. ATTORNEY DUSEK-For purposes of clarifying that for the Board, I think there's actually two questions being thrown out at this point. The first question as far as does or do the current zones in Town in some fashion lose any of their current benefits or if they some how are effected by this, my opinion to that is no, they remain the same and I think that's the first question. Now, there is a second issue and that is the way it is currently worded as far as the parking is concerned. Mr. Kenny raises the argument that perhaps, if you say, enclosed mall, gets a certain type of parking, which we do, 9 by 10 etcetera and he says, well maybe I could somehow qualify for that because I could be considered an enclosed mall. So in other words there's a possibility that he maybe entitled to a benefit. He certainly doesn't have anything to lose from this but he may possibly get a benefit and that will be up to this Board though to determine whether that language should be tightened down so that's only applicable to the enclosed mall zone. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-My concern was with the way he has stated that, he was concerned about the notification, I believe for this meeting and for this process. I hear what he is intending but you agree that this meeting was properly advertised? MR. KENNY-The meeting was properly notified. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Okay. MR. KENNY-I don't know if enough information was put into the, what was said. That's my concern. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Okay, one more question. I see you use the term, you believe this could be considered spot zoning. I would ask our Town Attorney to respond to that because several people have indicated that's a concern. ATTORNEY DUSEK-This is a matter that I researched quite intensively for another project that had come before the Town Board a short time ago, in fact it was the affordable housing issue. Much of the research was quite similar to what I had to do in this case but I rechecked the law. In my opinion this is not a spot zoning case although I will say that some of it is obviously a factual determination to be made by the Board and that you have to determine whether this is a benefit to the community as a whole or whether this is only purely benefiting the property owner in some fashion. The other thing I might add is that typically your spot zoning cases come into play where a parcel lets say residential and being rezoned to commercial and its a drastic change, a completely different change. In this particular case it seems to me that what you're going through is a refinement which also in my opinion leads me to believe that even without having gotten to the other issues I just indicated, that I find it very hard to believe that this is spot zoning. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Thank you. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Dave, may I ask you a question and maybe Paul can clarify it? Twelve thousand square foot of space per acre, can you clarify that for me? Is Dave right in assuming that the way it presently reads, we are only allowing 12,000 square feet per acre of building in a Plaza Commercial zone? ATTORNEY DUSEK-Plaza commercial or enclosed mall? MR. KENNY-There's 12,000 square feet per acre allowed in Plaza Commercial and Highway Commercial, that's the maximum density of building that the Advisory Committee recommended per acre in the Town. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-A quarter of an acre goes to, almost a quarter of an acre goes to building ... SUPERVISOR BORGOS-It's actually well over a quarter of an acre. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Well 44,000 is an acre. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Well just over 40. MR. KENNY-Yea, to meet the parking ... COUNCILMAN MONTESI-A third goes to open space and a third goes to parking. MR. KENNY-The other thing I mentioned, the way the current document is drafted, it says 12,000 square feet for 25 acres and I understand after I mentioned today, that that has been changed, that was a typo. ATTORNEY DUSEK-That was a typing error. It is 12,000 per acre. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Well it doesn't make any sense to be anything else. MR. KENNY-But that's the way it was in the paper. ATTORNEY DUSEK-We did issue a notice which was stapled to any copies or resolutions that _we're picked up for purposes of notifying anybody who had acquired that that was an error. MR. KENNY-Like I say and for the, possibly the process of expediency and trying to get this process approved, I would like the Town Board at least to consider getting rid of the 25 in front of the acreage and getting rid of the 800 to read 200 and then possibly incorporating the whole Plaza Commercial zone into this zone. I think that's really what we're here for. I'm not here for my, I'm here for and I have no interest in the Shop Rite, no interest in the Grand Union, no interest in the Shop N' Save, but I think all of those pieces of parcels right now have an undo hardship created upon them. I think they should be addressed. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Okay, I think you're probably correct and you're giving us some ideas. The fact is they haven't come in to ask for anything. As we're picking this up, this is something we can put into our process because we're going through revising the zoning ordinance right now so this is a real good time to do it. MR. KENNY-I believe Shop Rite was just before the Zoning Board for a variance for the same issue. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-They haven't, that hasn't come to my attention, I'm not aware. MR. KENNY-Shop Rite had an expansion. COUNCILMAN POTENZA-Shop N' Save or Price Chopper? MR. KENNY-No Shop Rite, where the Shop Rite Plaza is, that Plaza there. COUNCILMAN POTENZA-Great American. MR. KENNY-Great American, I guess, that's right. It used to be Shop Rite, it's Great American today. But I believe the owner had come in for some problems with greenery and stuff. I mean, I think the Planning Department can look at it. The area is completely blacktopped, it's completely wall to wall buildings. None of them can meet the 30 percent and that was an oversite, I really believe, on our part when that was recommended and that is the crust of the problem. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-We can just grandfather them. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-1 don't know that we can just grandfather them without changing the zoning regulations. MR. KENNY-Right. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-No, I mean, changing the zoning. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Yes, right, conceptually that might be the way to do it. Thank you. Any further comments? COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Dave, one of the things that's in your thought process, if you made "any enclosed mall, if you didn't put any restriction on the size of the acreage, okay, would I ;you by just simply including, just saying we're going to include an enclosed mall in our definitions, ''-- a new zone and if you didn't put a size in there, whatever the size is, then almost every shopping center would to benefit from the 20 percent t to benefit from the parking, would thereby run a canopy over something and say it was an enclosed mall, could you see that happening? MR. KENNY-No, you address, the way you have addressed it, the way it's got to be I think as the attorney has said, redefine a little bit but you address the parking requirements to everything else by saying an enclosed mall over a certain square footage, gross leasable area gets these benefits. In other words, if I had a restaurant, the way the zoning is written today, if I have a mall, I need 5.5 per thousand ... COUNCILMAN MONTESI-5.5 what? MR. KENNY-Parking spaces per thousand. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Parking spaces per thousand square feet. MR. KENNY-If I had a restaurant, I need so many parking spaces per seating capacity. If I have an office building, I need so many parking spaces for the amount of office space involved. All now you do is add a new one for any mall over 400,000 square feet instead of 5.5, that would be 5. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Wouldn't people come in with the same objection though and say that, here we are creating a new benefit for a specific mall because it's the only one around here... MR. KENNY-They have documented that this is all they need. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-I agree with you and that's why I personally support this new zone but I'm just wondering if we can accomplish what you're saying, the way we're doing it, go back maybe at a later date and make some of those other changes. But you don't seem to be arguing with the process but I can see if we went your route, the same people would come in with exactly the same arguments, saying that those benefits go only to that specific place. MR. KENNY-Only that particular zone. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Only to that ... COUNCILMAN POTENZA-But it would be a group zone. MR. KENNY-It would be a group zone which studies have pointed out that they don't need as much parking as a one single building that has a 1,000 square feet that's a retail store. They've proven that. That's why a Highway Commercial zone should not have that benefit because we have alot of individual buildings that take more driveways, more parking requirements are needed. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Let me ask our Town Attorney a question. MR. KENNY-That Plaza Commercial zone was designed for that and it was a mistake. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Let me ask a question. We're proposing several changes with this ordinance. One is the title of the zone, we're also proposing changes within it. Now that project currently exists in the Plaza Commercial zone, primarily. Is it possible with the process we've already gone through, without having to redo anything we've already done, to make the changes that Mr. Kenny is proposing to the existing Plaza Commercial zone? In other words, instead of creating a totally new zone, simply within the present zone, make the changes that are being proposed? Just as an option, just looking at that without having to redo. ATTORNEY DUSEK-I would say this that I think it's within the realm of possibility. The only thing that would concern me is that once you published a notice of public hearing and you've indicated that an ordinance is going to be amended in a certain fashion and also SEQRA is based upon this, that you have to be very careful that you do not make what would be considered a substantial change to what the public has been put on notice of and what your SEQRA documents lead to. Now, merely reclassifying in some respects you might be able to do but that's not something I would want to commit myself to ... SUPERVISOR BORGOS-No, I wouldn't expect you to. ATTORNEY DUSEK-A firm decision tonight on it until I have a chance to look at it. But let me say this, I think it's worth while exploring that and maybe it will be discounted because it's going to involve a substantial change and you may not want to it but that will be something we can certainly weigh. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-But you wouldn't say no right away without doing some research? ATTORNEY DUSEK-Without doing a little more looking at it, right. 1 SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Okay, thank you. MR. KENNY-I'll just hand you out one more letter that has something to do with this, something that you're talking about and it's not really, it's on this but it's a little off ... SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Yes, okay, I've seen this other one, if you don't mind, I don't want to 3co`, shut off debate but this really does not pertain to this so I would rather wait either for open forum or for a later date. I know where, I did see this other one earlier. MR. KENNY-It'll be open forum, it's under the same situation. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Okay, I'd rather keep this particular public hearing to these specific topics. MR. KENNY-Okay, thank you. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Thank you. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Paul correct me if I'm incorrect but I believe you said that one reason you wouldn't consider it spot zoning because it's not detrimental to any of the neighbors? ATTORNEY DUSEK-Well that's one of the, it's a factor that's weighed into it. It's not the only one. There's several factors and none of which in itself would necessary preclude the project. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Okay, my reason for bringing that up of course and I'm sure you have a copy of it, that we have a letter from Marvin L. Rudnick who is writing for Queensbury Gardens in which they do feel this will have a detrimental effect on them. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Are the Rudnicks here? I believe that they are. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Yes. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-I've got to make believe I don't know who anybody is out there. If you here would you like to stand up and introduce yourself and say anything? Okay, we do have a letter that has been received for the record concerning the possible impact of noise, etcetera, primarily noise on the accommodations and the buildings that are to the south and east of the proposed project location.. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I refer particularly Paul to one sentence that's stands out and there may be more, on page 2, the mall expansion can only add to the expectation that sometime in the future, Queensbury's zoning ordinance will compel discontinuance of our business. ATTORNEY DUSEK-Well I think that's something that the Board has to weigh. That's an issue of fact and not really you know something that from a legal call I can predict what may or may not happen here. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-I think, again I read the letter also and my feeling was that's true of any parcel anywhere in the Town, you buy on the basis of what's there now. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I agree with you but I'm talking about when we're talking about, is this or is this not spot zoning within the legal definition of spot zoning? SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Well Paul has given his opinion that it is not. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-One of the criteria for it not to be spot zoning, is, one of the criteria, is that it not be detrimental to the adjoining properties owners and we have an adjoining property owner who says this will be detrimental to them. So I bring this up because then can we be accused of doing spot zoning. ATTORNEY DUSEK-Not just on that one point. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Not on that one point but it's also, you know, it's a point I don't think we can completely ignore either. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Is there anyone else who wishes to speak on this issue? Yes sir, would you identify yourself please? MIKE O'CONNOR-I'm Mike O'Connor, I'm speaking as an individual tax payer. I welcome the suggested changes. I question though whether you really have gone farther or far enough and after hearing Mr. Kenny I wonder if you're going in the right direction. Basically I think that the proposal as to parking where you have 9lfoot spots instead of 10 foot spots is longer overdue. I've appeared before this Board before and we've talked about the requirements in other areas where we've had to put septic systems underneath parking, which was an added expense to businessman and developers and the suggestion was made by this Board and by the Planning Board that maybe, don't pave that, but then when you go to get your building permit and CO and what not, you find that you will pave it in order to fully comply with what your site plan review is. So I think some time ago the American Institute of Architects and there's a couple other gr.. . ,.. s suggested that we consider 9 foot wide parking spots as being adequate. I think that they are, I think that that is a good move. I really thi,►:c - Ilist it is a good move for all commercial uses within the Town. I really don't know the difference between getting into a 9 foot parking spot in a mall lot or in any other lot to be honest with you. I think basically you're talking about a function of safety and a function of convenience. You still have your driveway, 20 foot wide, your access ways, 20 foot wide even under this proposal. So its a matter, you're going to be approaching the parking lot from the same drive, same access way. I think that is not part of this proposal, if it can't be broadened, you immediately should undertake perhaps reviewing all parking requirements through out the whole Town. The other question I have which I also applauded ... COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Mike can I stop you for just one minute? . MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-When you, 1 know you have represented some clients on parking and septic systems under parking lots and I know, I recall 1 or 2 of the Board members saying something to the affect, maybe you don't have to pave that. But you're last comment said that when you go for your CO or your building permit, you need to, you end up paving it because the site plan review called for it to be paved? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-The Planning Board says that they agree with us, they sympathize with us but the ordinance says that you will have so many parking spots and the parking that is accepted is paved parking. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Alright, so in other words, even though you'd like to not pave it, that's not within the frame work or the realm of the latitude of our Building Department, Building Inspector. MR. O'CONNOR-That's my understanding of it. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Okay, just so that the rest of the Board knows that too. I mean it's just interesting that ... SUPERVISOR BORGOS-I believe we had kind of encourage ... COUNCILMAN POTENZA-1 thought there was some discussion about pressed stone? SUPERVISOR BORGOS-None, pavement. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Well no you can't do that. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Well he's not saying Building Department, he saying Planning Board says you can't do it. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-No it doesn't fall within the definition of our ordinance because we say permeable and I understand that any space that is not paved that is parked on constantly is not considered permeable because it compacts the earth and I do think that's something we ought to work on and maybe have some green areas that you put overflow parking into and so on and so forth. MR. O'CONNOR-We have some difficulty within the ordinance between the definition of green space and permeable. The percentages that were adopted were for green space and not. necessarily for permeability. Mr. Stewart made a comment as to the nature in type of soil of this particular project site. I really think that drainage is not a function of permeability. On any site plan review, you have to come in with a drainage program, a drainage plan that's certified by an engineering firm regardless of what your soils are, that shows that you adequately handle all drainage whether it be created by roof tops or by parking or whatever is on the site. Then maybe that will get into that as to the percentages of going from 30 percent to 20 percent here, where in all other commercial areas of anything of at least 1 acre size, we are requiring 30 percent. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-In defense of Mr. Stewart and not that I need to defend him but we had our QEDC was built on rock and when we put our catch basins in they asked a simple question, where are you going with it. We said, we're certainly not going in the ground as you can go into the ground at the mall and we ended up making pipes to take the water away... COUNCILMAN POTENZA-To the canal. 3(9� COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-In creating our own pipe. MR. O'CONNOR-1 don't wish my statement to be considered to be negative to what Mr. Stewart has said. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-No, no, I know. MR. O'CONNOR-But today you wouldn't have built that. Today you would have a certified engineer plan that says that they would work, you would have a deploy test before hand. I don't know when you did your particular project but you wouldn't get that I don't think with what we're putting in when we do a project today. My other question which I have and which I started to say I applauded is that in this particular definition you relate your parking to gross leasable area as to oppose to other areas within our ordinance where you address to gross building area and in this particular area and I don't know if you have a definition to actually handle what you've set up and you may want to consider expanding a little bit even within what you have advertised here. You exclude common mall area. I don't think you define common mall area elsewhere in the ordinance. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-That was the comment I made the other night Mike that, that we're using language that there's no definition within any of our ... MR. O'CONNOR-Not currently I don't think. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-No, there is not. MR. O'CONNOR-1 think there you've got to deal with what happens to the keios that's in the middle of the mall and how big an area you surround the keios with in order to determine what is common and what is not common. But the thing I did pick up on which 1 think is worth having is that you exclude storage and maintenance areas. Presently in all other parts of the ordinance for commercial parking calculations, you only exclude storage and service areas that are cellar or attic and I think that's one reason that we're getting so much paving and so much unused paving. We really haven't looked at the particular uses and tried to define our requirements to what we actually need to build. We don't need pavement upon pavement, parking lot upon parking lot. So you've cut down on the size of the parking spots, you've cut down on permeability and I think you've even cut down on what is considered the basis for requiring the cut down parking spots and all of which I applaud but I think that you've got to go a step further and you've got to include other areas of the Town. There's no reason that safety or any other reason dictates somebody who has 20 parking spots that he includes his storage area when another developer doesn't include storage area. The other comments I addressed to Paul and I think they were, I'm not sure, I picked up a copy of this today and I think most of it was housekeeping. I kind of do agree with Dave Kenny though, unless and I picked this up today, this thing here is misleading from what Mr. Stewart is proposing. The copy that I picked up says that for each 25 acres, you can have 12,000 square feet. If it was advertised in that manner I think you've got a little basic problem. I think you meant for each acre within the 25 acre zone, you could have 12,000 square feet. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Did you have a little attachment in yours? MR. O'CONNOR-No I did not. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-But the point is the advertisement, they're talking about the advertisement. It's not what the piece of paper says. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-There's a little piece attached here, notice of possible error. Our Attorney indicates that he feels it's a typographical error of no significance. MR. O'CONNOR.-Well I don't have my copy, I only picked the copy up today so I don't think that's, whatever. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Thank you. Anyone else who wishes to speak for or against or ask questions about? Yes sir. JAMES GOSIER-My comments will be brief. My name is James Gosier, I'm with the law firm of Green and Seifter in Syracuse, we represent the owners of Northway Plaza. I think my comments basically reflect what Mrs. Mbnahan was saying in that we feel that the proposed amendment to the zoning ordinance would have a detrimental effect on an adjoining property owners, particularly in the Plaza Commercial district to the extent that we believe that the remaining parcels in the Plaza Commercial district will be operating under the existing ordinance, the existing rules if you will while the Aviation Mall will in a fact have its own set of rules. The proposal expresses the need to address the unique characteristics of the enclosed mall which would include decreasing the amount of permeable space, decreasing the size of the permitted parking spaces and I would suggest to you that the cars that go to the Aviation Mall are no smaller than the cars that go to the Northway Plaza. That the issue is strictly one of fairness. That the owners of Northway Plaza, that the owners of all other commercial enterprises in the plaza commercial district are operating under a single set of rules and do not have the where-with-all to come and ask for a change in the rules. The purpose I would suggest of the proposed change is not to redefine the code to bring it into conformance with generally accepted changes in parking dimensions or permeability dimensions. The purpose of the amendment is to allow Pyramid to expand their mall. Plain and simple. Whereas under the existing code, they're not permitted to do that. Again I would suggest that the basic underline issues is a matter of fairness that you must treat all commercial enterprises in the zone the same and I would also respectfully disagree with counsel, that I believe that this does present a very significant spot zoning issue. Given the fact that I would find it difficult to find a general public benefit to the proposed change as opposed to a specific and unique benefit to the Pyramid Company. -- SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Let me just make this comment. I speak for myself of course. This project came to us and we believe that its a, I believe that its a good project. We may disagree with some of the technicalities and that's why we've got the hearing. At no time did I or any other member of this Board say, now this would be for Pyramid and Pyramid only and we will absolutely not allow any other business in Town to have these changes if they request them. MR. GOSIER-Nor was I suggesting that. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-I think we have to make that very clear, Mr. Kenny ... COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Steve, excuse me, we did make this site specific. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Let me finish just a minute. We did not at any point say it would be only here. If you or anyone else comes before us, we will duly consider your request. In fact I'm convinced on the basis of what I'm hearing tonight, that maybe we ought to go through Town wide and make the changes to 9 foot spaces. Maybe we should make some other changes. But I don't think it's fair to state publically or to imply in any way that we're doing only for this group and we're going to take unfair advantage of anybody else. We want to encourage all business to thrive and if your clients feel that this would be beneficial to them by all means don't spend alot of money, just come in and request a change. It doesn't take alot. Just submit a letter to us request the change from 10 foot space to 9 foot space. I don't even think you need engineering work to do that. That's a simple change in the ordinance. I don't buy for a minute the argument that you can't afford to request a change and that we're against the other malls. Not in any fashion. MR. GOSIER-I was not, sir, I was not suggesting that in any way that you personally or the Board is against the development of retail business. What I'm suggesting is that under the proposed definition there are no other parcels or enterprises that fit the definition of an enclosed shopping mall 25 acres. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-But there could be. COUNCILMAN POTENZA-But there could be. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-There is land available in the Town of Queensbury zoned for commercial use that could easily fit this definition. MR. GOSIER-Yes but using your example of Northway Plaza coming into request a reduction for the size of parking space, we would not be permitted to do that even if this proposal were granted because we don't meet the 25 acre requirement. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-But you could come in as a less than 25 acre group simply requesting a change in the minimum sizes of parking spaces under the zone that you're currently in. So you don't have to go through a whole rezoning. MR. GOSIER-That would require a zoning variance and counsel can correct me if I'm wrong. That would require a variance with a very different standard of hardship. SUPERVISOR. BORGOS-If you came in for your specific project but if you simply wrote a letter, —' say gee Town Board, we'd like to have a4l Plaza Commercial and or Highway Commercial changed Town wide from 10 feet to 9 fe t. We would consider that with out any further documentation. I see no need to hire engineers or anything else beyond that. Am I correct? I mean we could simply, we do that all the time. ATTORNEY DUSEK-The Town Board certainly has within it's authority to vary or amend the zoning ordinance on it's own initiative as well as at the request of a writing received by anyone. So I don't think there's anything special there that has to be done and the Town Board will 3(0q typically, in fact it has, a variety of zoning amendments that's currently considering on its own as a result of hearing concerns raised by members of the community. The other thing that I might add here is that I think that what I see happening is some of the issues of say Northway for instance are, maybe parking for instance, that's one issue though. I think that what the Town Board is looking at here is an overall creation of a new zone that is designed to fine tune the ordinance and look towards a part of Town and a business in Town that calls for specific needs that it may have and that in turn would be beneficial to the community if the Town Board in turn helps to foster that growth. I don't see the issue here of being that this is just for this particular parcel and the community itself is not getting anything. I think what I see here is the Town taking it's overall zoning ordinance, reviewing it and saying, well you know enclosed malls are a little different and so therefore what we ought to do is several different things for them that may not necessarily be appropriate for other areas. The Town Board has chosen to be very selective in this fashion because for whatever reason they've decided that they don't want to make a cross-the-board changes in a Plaza Commercial. I have no problem whatsoever seeing a difference between a plaza and an enclosed mall and seeing that they both have different needs and different demands. MR. GOSIER-I think, I still don't see where an enclosed mall, 25 acres, the Aviation Mall whether its owned by Pyramid or owned by anyone else and this not meant to single out Pyramid, only the fact that they own the property at the time, that because they are a larger facility that their unique needs include smaller parking spaces. If the issue is one of safety, if the issue is one of practicality in terms of cars just aren't as big as they used to be, those same cars patronize Northway Plaza or patronize other businesses in the Plaza Commercial Zone, those are not proper bases for amending the zoning ordinance such as to create a new and special district for what now amounts to a single parcel. ATTORNEY DUSEK-If you pick out one single item, you might be able to make a case but that's not what is happening here. What's happening and this is a multiple number items being developed for a new district all of which contribute towards this. Now you may be making an argument that maybe parking ought to be reduced in all the other areas. That doesn't necessarily mean that this zone in particular is spot zoning because you can pick out one area. The other point I might make is that there's other criteria besides whether or not cars can get in and out of those- spaces. Perhaps and this is up to the Board for consideration but I can immediately think that perhaps in a mall cars stay parked in one given area longer than they would perhaps in the plaza area. Cars are much more frequently coming and going in a plaza because people can't walk from one end to the other without having to get, you know, get wet or be out in the cold or whatever else, so they may very well take a car from one end, the duration that the car is parked in one area maybe less. I mean I'm just throwing this out. I can think of reasons why you might be will to take smaller car spaces in an area where cars are going to be parked for longer durations then you would in another area. MR. GOSIER-I have been briefly involved in the project and I have not seen any evidence of that one way or the other. If that is a consideration than I think that's evidence that ought to be presented to the Board for their consideration. ATTORNEY DUSEK-I don't know, that's up for the Board's consideration, I don't purport to make a decision on behalf of the Board. MR. GOSIER-I think my point with regard to the size of the parking spaces I think can be carried over to the issues of permeability and to the other changes that go along with the creation of this new zone. The thing that the owners of Northway Plaza find most disturbing is the fact, not that they're creating this new zone and that this parcel today is the only parcel in that zone, is that the effects that go along with it. The change in the parking, the change in the permeability requirements. Those carry right through and in effect discriminate against the other property owners that will remain in the Plaza Commercial District. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Let me again interrupt you because you kind of get me going in the wrong direction when you use the word discriminate and so forth. Have your clients at any time approached this Board for any change in any of the concerns related to their zone where we have said, no, you may not do it, any of things that we've talked about tonight with this other zone? MR. GOSIER-We found no need to because we've been operating under the existing ordinance and as we felt everyone in the Plaza Commercial District should be. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-But you're almost, �ou're just a little bit short of making an allegation of discrimination. MR. GOSIER-I apologize if ... SUPERVISOR BORGOS-That bothers me personally because we try very hard not to discriminate. MR. GOSIER-I apologize if it comes off that way. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Steve, I don't take what he's saying that way at all. What he is saying ... SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Well he used the word, I didn't. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Yes, because the ordinance will discriminate when you have set rules for one, he's not saying it happened but he's saying that once you changed the rules so that one set of rules applies to one type of shopping area and another set to another shopping area, it's just like I said, if everybody was blond, they could wear any color that they want to but if anybody was a brunette they can only wear black, I mean that's the same type of thing. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-You just answered my argument. You said, if you said blond could do this but brunettes or red heads couldn't. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-But we have, we've said one type ... SUPERVISOR BORGOS-We have not. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Yes we have. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-We have not. We're ... COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-We are saying that with this new, wait a minute, we are saying with this new ordinance if you're a certain type of a shopping area you can do one thing, if you're another type of a shopping area you can do something else. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Not correct. . Not correct. Listen to your logic of your own argument. We're saying if you're in this new area you may do this and if in another area, you may do what that area permits. We're not saying in the context of this or in the text of it, that if you're here you may do this and if you're over there you may not do that. We're not saying that. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-You may not do that without coming in for a variance or coming in for a request. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-No, no, we're not saying that, that's already in there Betty. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-That's what I'm saying. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-And we have someone request a change so we're talking about a change. Now other people can come in and request the same or similar change and we'll give them the same courtesy. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Steve that is not good reasoning. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Well I think it is, we disagree. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Well this public hearing has probably prompted at least this Town Board member to say, maybe all plaza commercial should have 9 foot, there's something positive coming out. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-That's a great idea. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-The other thing conceptually, the other thing that I think we've decided on is that if you are plaza commercial and there is only one plaza commercial, Northway Plaza, Queensbury Plaza, Pyramid Mall or Aviation Mall and Northgate. COUNCILMAN POTENZA-Miller Hill. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-We're probably go along conceptually with the change of 20 percent permeability. As you've never come in for anything because you never had put a new building on. -— MR. GOSIER-That's right. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-The minute you do, you can ask for a relief on the 20 percent because you're at your limit. I mean your property, so beneficially without making this change in this zoning, I personally want to see the zone change, those 2 items change anyway. So that's the good side of it and we have to direct our Attorney to do some homework on that, it may be small bit. SUPERVISOR, BORGOS-Any further comments? COUNCILMAN POTENZA-The point I think is being here tonight and I agree with Councilman Montesi is the fact that there's a problem out with Aviation Mall per say, but a problem for all malls in this Town and it's the size of the parking spaces and its permeability and its a number of parking spaces related to leasable areas. So I think these concerns can be addressed. I don't necessarily see them coinciding with perhaps our selection of zoning this area, a mall zone. MR. GOSIER-If I may, I think if you follow Mr. Kenny's logic that if those particular items are taken into consideration and perhaps revised across the Plaza Commercial District, then perhaps you eliminate the need to change the Aviation Mall property to a different designation. _ COUNCILMAN POTENZA-Possibly. MR. GOSIER-Thank you. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Thank you very much. I've got to raise a issue, I meant to raise it before when we got so involved at getting started. It came to my attention just at the beginning at this meeting that there was an omission in the advertising for this meeting. Is this the proper time to address that Paul? ATTORNEY DUSEK-Sure if you would like. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Would you explain to us what happen and what we should do? ATTORNEY -DUSEK-It's my understanding that 2 parcel numbers were omitted from the ad, that 3 parcels were to be rezoned or 5 parcels were to be rezoned and only 3 numbers have appeared in the readvertisement, leaving out 2. That does not mean that if the Board's choice was to go ahead, they could not go ahead with what they have and simply readvertise and do the other. But it was my, after I touched base briefly with Bob Stewart tonight and it was my feeling that since it was a bad night and the Board was considering holding the hearing anyway open that the'better thing to do would be to leave the hearing open and then readvertise for the other 2 parcels if that's what the Pyramid people would like to include as part of the rezoning. In addition to that if we do have to readvertise that may give us some time if we want to reshape the ordinance a little bit to add in an amendment at that point. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-What 2 parcels were left out? ATTORNEY DUSEK-The one behind Howard Johnson's and it's my understanding that, not Howard Johnson's, Burger King, that we had thought that that was all part of the mall property already and apparently was a separate parcel and in addition, parcels that they are acquiring from an adjoining property owner, apparently, here again we thought it was one but there's apparently two making up the one parcel that they're buying. Is that correct Bob? MR. STEWART-Yes. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-They're essentially slivers of property. MR. STEWART-Just 2 pieces but ... SUPERVISOR BORGOS-None the less we want to do it properly. Okay, is there anyone else who wishes to speak from the audience. MR. STEWART-1 just have a couple of comments if I may. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-This is your second turn now so we're open to second. Please state your name again for the record. MR. STEWART-Again my name is Bob Stewart here representing the Aviation Mall. I know that Mr. Rudnick had filed a letter with some comments with the Board and I've received tonight from Mr. Meyers organization some responses to that and I would like to offer those up and make them,a part of the record. SUPERVISOR BORGOS Would you present al copy to Mr. Rudnick also? MR. STEWART-Yes. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Would you give one to Darleen too? MR. STEWART-As to the points that have been raised thus far, I don't want to belabor them. There's some areas where I may agree with the gentleman who spoke and some areas where I may not. We came forward with a proposal of change spelling out exactly what we wanted, why we wanted it and what we intended to do with it. I or the Pyramid Company of Glens Falls do not have the right to come in and request a change for some piece of property that we do not own and do not control. Nor would we necessarily have the facts and the background data to substantiate some of that material. If any of those people wish to come forward and think they have a valid solid argument, I'm sure this Board will entertain them graciously. Number one, the lot line adjustment that Mr. Kenny spoke about would not resolve the change of zone, we've got to have the change of zone in any event. He had some talk about raising the density from 12,000 square feet per acre to 15,000 square feet, we can live with the 12,000, we don't need any change to 15. The question, the areas that are relatively simple to agree with are the things like 9 foot wide parking spaces. I think we have come forward and demonstrated where we've reached a point in this country where 9 foot wide parking spaces clearly fit the bill. I hope we've convinced the Board that we're correct on that point. If we —' have and we've done our homework carefully, the Board might say we are so impressed by that argument, we're inclined to impose that regulation Town wide. I have absolutely no objection to that. I don't think it should block our application because we have done our homework and we've spent our time and we've spent our money but if the Board feels any of the things we suggest make sense in other ways, the Board can handle that on your own initiative or some of the property owners can come forward and request it. The permeability question, that's a little bit different because I disagree I think to some extent with Mike O'Connor. I think that is related to some extent to the soil conditions on a particular site. One of the reasons why I don't think any of the other 3 areas surrounding that intersection that are zoned Plaza Commercial, have come forward asking for 20 percent permeability down from 30, is frankly, I don't think any of them have 20 percent. I represented the old Sears mall about 3 years ago when they were planning their expansion and that was under the old rules with 20 percent and we asked for it and did get a variance from the 20, we couldn't even meet the 20 and I don't believe the other malls really built to the lines. So 30, 20, 1 honestly don't think it makes any difference, it's a practical matter to those organizations but if this Board does and if this Board wants to consider and amend that density or permeability requirement, we have no objection. I don't think though it should be used against us as a weapon when we've done our homework, researched, showed you the soil, showed how we plan to cope with it and that we can work comfortably with 20 percent. The question about the enclosed shopping center language, the distinction between the shopping plaza as it's defined in the ordinance and the proposed definition of enclosed shopping center is that the shopping center primarily oriented inside. The reason why that language was selected is that it had to do with the parking situation. In an enclosed mall you have to get to your smaller inside stores by working your inside passage ways because they don't have direct access to the outside. Your major stores do but your smaller stores don't. So we are primarily oriented inside. That's not true with —' Mr. Kenny at his mall. It's true he has a center, a large lovely center mall and you can go from store to store inside but each store has it's outside entrance, each store has it's outside parking, you can directly go from the trucks directly into the store using the outside entrances. So he is not primarily inside oriented so I don't think he meets the definition of the enclosed mall and that therefore he is harmed in any way because of the creation of that situation. That's essentially about all I have to say. I agree with some of these people that some of the things that we've raised might well work other places if you seem so. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Bob I thought I heard the attorney from the Northway Plaza, he said that without this zoning change that you would not have a project. But just the proposal that Dave Kenny was making that you could have this project if you went the route of variances. MR. STEWART-True if the variances were available to us we could have done it that way. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-It is available, what I'm mean saying is that this because if this zoning change doesn't go, there was alternative ways of skinning the cat sort of speak. MR. STEWART-There are two, one would have been to go to the Zoning Board and try to get what we want by variances for that Board but because of the language of your ordinance and until its corrected, we can't do that and I'm in litigation right now so I know what I'm talking about on that one. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Specifically? MR. STEWART-Specifically your ordinance says in order to get a simple area variance like a 2 foot set back from a building or any of these so called area type, minor type variances, you have to show that the property would be rendered absolutely useless if you didn't get it. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Hardship. MR. STEWART-And that's not the law of the State of New York, it was a mistake when Mr. Holman drafted that language in 88 and until it's corrected, I'm in litigation on it and I wouldn't recommend that a client come in and go through that agony. The other way we could have done it is to come in and ask for exactly the same changes that we're requesting now only under, doing it applying it to all of the plaza mall. We thought about it, I was nervous about it because I didn't know what consequences it might cause on other malls that I hadn't studied, that I didn't have information about and particularly I thought your Board was going to be nervous about it and you might turn me down because you would say, Bob, what you propose makes sense to Aviation with your soils, your space, the perimeter roads, all the things you have but we're not going to do it because it's going to apply to other zones where it could create great mischief. So I wanted to avoid that risk and I still think that was the proper choice to take. Anything else I can say? SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Thank you, stay around because there may be some more comments or questions. Mr. Kenny, please, second time. MR. KENNY-Some of the things that have been raised, one, the permeability issue, I don't think is all commercial zones within the Town, I think it's one zone that has the problem, the Plaza Commercial zone because it's fully built out. I think that, well we as an Advisory Committee suggested 30 percent in the Town was to address some of the new developmen where the woods was still there and there was still greenery area, not to have that becon like Quaker Road, Aviation, that situation. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-So you're saying if we're going to rectify ... MR. KENNY-So the 30 percent has to be rectified now because he just got done saying, he doesn't think the other ones could meet it anyway. I think that if it was reduced to 20 percent Aviation Mall wouldn't be in here for a new zone. Secondly when we're talking about permeable area, for some reason this notion is how are we taking care of water. As a member of the Advisory Committee that is not what it was for. It was to get green area back here and not everything building and blacktop. The drainage problem can be under blacktop and take care of your water concerns. You can blacktop everything and put dry wells underneath it which I have done and that takes care of your drainage problem. It doesn't have to be green to except drainage. Blacktop will take that drainage if there's pits in there and there's dry wells underneath it. So this permeable situation mainly was to bring back greenery area to the Town from the Advisory Committee. We're saying, do we want this piece of land totally blacktopped and building? No we want to see some trees and some green space left, whether it was used for drainage, it's up to the applicant. So I think we're side stepping the issue in saying the permeability area is there just to take care of the water problems because that was not the intent, at least to my understanding. I will go back and say I do believe that this particular zone should be 20 percent because it can never have the trees back there because they are already gone. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-The existing Plaza Commercial Zone? MR. KENNY-The Plaza Commercial. I'm not in any way saying that every Highway Commercil piece of property should have 20 percent because I would like to see more green area in tt;_,_., Town and that was the concept. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Dave are you also saying that maybe under Plaza Commercial, maybe under other zones too, the word permeable should be changed to green space? MR. KENNY-You're talking about reviewing things, I think possibly that should be reviewed. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-You're saying the intention? MR. KENNY-The intention should be reviewed. I'm not here to state that, I'm just here to try ... SUPERVISOR BURGOS-It's a good comment though. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Yes, very good. MR. KENNY-The other issue as far as Bob is saying, I don't meet the definition of enclosed mall or ... because the Building Inspector is here, the 8 new stores I just put in, none of them have outside entrances. Bugle Boy, Kitchen Collection, Socks Galore ... COUNCILMAN MONTESI-There's a test on all of these leases. MR. KENNY-All of these are lease spaces that are interior mall access only. So Bob it's nc true, the statement that all of my stores have exterior access, they do not. MR. STEWART-Then I withdraw. ,..� 1 COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-All I can say is Dave that even if you do have exterior doors, I frankly don't get inside your mall and go to one store and run back out and jump in my car and move it in front of another store, etcetera, etcetera. MR. KENNY-No, I'm not saying alot of the stores don't, it was designed that way but ... �s COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-But even if they do you don't use them. MR. KENNY-Ninety percent of my traffic is from inside. I don't think that's an issue though. I think it's a mute point. I think the major concern here is really this permeability test, what the purpose of it's for and really quite frankly I'm under the impression permeability area in the Town was to keep some green area in the Town. You can get all the drainage that you want under parking lots. The other issue that Mike O'Connor raised with the size of the parking regulations and how tough are parking regulations are, quite frankly, is that in order to meet the parking regulations, the building size regulations and then the permeability or greenery regulations, you have to put the septic systems under a parking lot, sometimes. It's not whether it's blacktopped or not. Whether the parking lot is blacktopped or left gravel, permeable or whatever you want to call it, our Town ordinance does not allow septic systems under parking areas. It doesn't define, I don't' believe whether it's paved or gravel. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Well we grant variances for it all the while. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-We have typically been granting as the Board of Health, I believe, we've been granting variances routinely. MR. KENNY-You have to come in and get a variance for that. Right but I think the question that he's, probably one of the issues, if we cut them down to 9 feet and reduce some of these regulations, possibly then we wouldn't have to be putting a septic system under the parking lot but the way the zoning is now, you're almost forced to do it. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-It's interesting to hear you speak as a member of the Citizen's Advisory Committee because as you know this Board excepted almost 100 percent, the recommendations of the Citizen's Advisory Committee and we said this group comprised of Planning Board members, Zoning Board members, all different walks of life worked very hard for 19 months on the rules and regs, we made very few changes. So you're a member of the group that proposed what we now have and to hear you making recommendations for changes, I think is very important and weighs heavily in favor of some of those changes. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Well I think and I may be putting words in their mouth, but very many in the group have said that these ordinances need to be reworked in the light of experience and there's alot of changes that they feel they should be looking at and making new changes in them. Zoning is not a static situation. ABE RUDNICK-Abe Rudnick is my name and my address is Rudley Place, Queensbury. I want to know what you're doing something about the traffic in the mall? SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Traffic? MR. RUDNICK-Yes. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-What do you want to know about the traffic? MR. RUDNICK-Since you only have two, one access to Aviation Mall, I look around ... SUPERVISOR BORGOS-There are 3 entrances and 2 exits at the moment. MR. RUDNICK-Well I've looked around most of the shopping malls, you know I drove around and see most of them have access from different places. Most of the traffic in here is only in one location, everything is in one. If you're doing something about in the future, what's going to happen in the future with all the traffic we have right now? As my understanding about 5 years from now, the traffic will be doubled. What's going to happen with all the cars? SUPERVISOR BORGOS-I don't often go to Crossgates but I think there are only 2 entrances or exits down there. I'm not positive but I think there are only 2. MR. RUDNICK-Several. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-At Crossgates? MR. RUDNICK-Yes. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Crossgates has 2, Route 20 and the Northway. MR. RUDNICK-Most of them, I looked at Latham, I looked at slot of them, they have 3 or 4 places actually. All I want to know, what you're doing about it? Thank you. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Sure anyone wish to address that? We have a traffic consultant, would you state your name again for the record please? MR. MEYER-My name is John Meyer, John Meyer Consulting. The traffic at the mall will not double, that is incorrect. There is approximately a 20 percent increase in the floor space of the mall proposed and the traffic would be somewhat less than 20 percent increase, somewhere in the range of 10 to 15 percent. The 3 entrances and 2 exits from the mall onto Aviation Road are more than adequate. Our studies have proved conclusively that the capacity of the driveways as they exist, the newly constructed, reconstructive traffic signals and the improvements to 9 and Aviation Road are more than adequate to service the traffic to and from Aviation Mall after the expansion. All of our traffic studies which were submitted to your Board and to the County have been reviewed and detailed by the State Department of Transportation and the State concurs with the findings of the traffic study and that is that there is adequate capacity in the system and we do not need additional access points. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Let me ask you a question while your there and this has been raised by several people. If at some future date, additional access points are available, would you be interested in looking at those possibilities? MR. MEYER-Yes we would. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Thank you. I sounded like an attorney for a minute but I just need yes or no to some things for the record. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I don't think that there's any doubt from any of us who've used the mall or even used the Aviation Road, that come Christmas time and times like that we do run into grid lock over there. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-I think that's true almost anywhere. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Yes, but I just mentioned that because it is a way of life whether you want to ignore it or not and it is a little dangerous when it starts backing up onto the Lake George Road, Glen Street, whatever you want to call it. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-When the traffic light malfunctions for a variety of reasons. Anyone else from the audience? Okay, seeing no more hands, I would ask, we need an opinion now from the attorney. We can recess this and keep the hearing open or we can simply close this tonight and incorporate the minutes of tonight as part of the next hearing. As I understand we have to .readvertise to include new zones anyway. I don't want these people to have to retestify. I'm just trying save all this testimony, all this documentation. What would be your recommendation? — ATTORNEY DUSEK-To accomplish what you've indicated, what you've wanted to accomplish, it would be my opinion, it would be better to leave the hearing open and then readvertise as well. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Would that also me that the public comment period as such stays open? Anyone can write to me or to the Town Clerk or whomever and officially get this into the record? ATTORNEY DUSEK-Yes. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Okay, with that in mind I think we'll close, I've got to be careful ... COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Steve I would like, I would like to ... COUNCILMAN POTENZA-Wait can.I just ask a question? SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Okay. COUNCILMAN POTENZA-A legal question. Shouldn't we put a time limit on this as to how long we're going to have this remain open? COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-We have to readvertise until we have another hearing. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-As quickly as possible would be my feeling. — ATTORNEY DUSEK-You need a minimum of X10 day advertising period. SUPERVISOR. BORGOS-But we're going to need another quick, at least a quick Town Board meeting to set a public hearing, correct? ATTORNEY DUSEK-Correct. 1 d 3"� 1 SUPERVISOR BORGOS-So you're going to have to draft some new legislation. ATTORNEY DUSEK-Yes. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-That could be, as quickly as you can have that ready, we can have another Town Board meeting. That should only take a few minutes so we don't delay the interested parties. The concern is though, okay we've all agreed we'll leave the proceedings open. Mrs. Potenza did you have a comment and then Mrs. Monahan I think has a comment? COUNCILMAN POTENZA-No that was my comment. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-As quickly as possible. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-So we need to have a special Town Board meeting to readvertise, to make a resolution for a ... COUNCILMAN POTENZA-A public hearing. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-No, we're keeping this public hearing open though. ATTORNEY DUSEK-Yes. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-So why do you need a special resolution? ATTORNEY DUSEK-To add in the other 2 parcels. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-It will probably be determined to be inconsequential because that's all been available to the public to look at but we have to do it for the record. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-We actually have to have a public hearing or a Town Board meeting to . ATTORNEY DUSEK-You're having a meeting to actually for 2 purposes. One is to create various amendments'to the zoning ordinance but the other one is actually to rezone the parcels and if you were to proceed on the basis of what you have right now alone, you would only rezone the 3 parcels and would not rezone the other 2. MR. STEWART-May I ask a question really? Would it be possible at this meeting to schedule for your next meeting, which is what the 17th, something like that, a hearing on the next meeting with the amendment notes? Can we do that now to get that moving? SUPERVISOR BORGOS-I would be thrilled to do that if we can legally accomplish that. Can you feel comfortable in changing the language to include those other 2 parcels or do anything else you might have to do? I'm very happy not to keep adding more meetings, to be blunt about it. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-I too Bob are thinking that sometime this week I'm going to be called here to have a 5 minute meeting to, you know, if we could do that tonight it would be great. MR. STEWART-Could we take a 5 minute recess and maybe put together ... ATTORNEY DUSEK-Well I would have to, I need some time to draft the language into a resolution form. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Why don't, I probably, I definitely need you for some of these other things. How many people are here for items other than this particular one we've just done? Only 2. Okay, why don't we take a 5 minute recess, let the Aviation Mall people consult with our Attorney, we'll come back and clear up everything else and hopefully get out of here at a reasonable hour. FIVE MINUTE RECESS SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Let the record shows it about 9:42 p.m. or so ... I'll ask the Board if you truly wish to continue this meeting, this hearing and readvertise or at this point do you want not even think about the proposal any longer? I think we have a consensus that we want to readvertise. I've got to ask. I'll asks our Town Attorney, have you drafted some language that you feel would be appropriate? ATTORNEY DUSEK read into the record the following resolution: RESOLUTION TO SET FURTHER PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO ZONING ORDINANCE RESOLUTION NO. 678, 1990, Introduced by Mrs. Betty Monahan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mrs. Marilyn Potenza: WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is presently considering certain amendments, supplements, changes and/or modifications to the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance which was adopted on October 1, 1988, and more specifically considering the following revisions: 1) Article 2 GENERAL PROVISIONS - Section 2.020 Definitions - Add a definition for "ENCLOSED SHOPPING CENTER" and amend the -- definition of "GROSS LEASABLE AREA (GLA)"; 2) Article 4 ZONING DISTRICTS AND REGULATIONS - Section 4.010 Zoning Districts - Add a zoning district entitled "ENCLOSED SHOPPING CENTER" and create Section 4.020-P describing said District; 3) Article 7 SUPPLEMENTARY REGULATIONS A. Section 7.071 - Off Street Parking Designation - Add Criteria for enclosed shopping Center, B. Section 7.072 Off Street Parking Schedule - Add enclosed shopping center standards to said Schedule, C. Section 7.072 - Off Street Loading - Amend requirements to add separate criteria for Enclosed Shopping Centers. 4) CHANGES OF ZONE - Whereby certain parcels of land owned by Pyramid Company of Glens Falls (Town of Queensbury Tax Map No. 98-1-5.2), Charles Wood (Town of Queensbury Tax Map No. 98-1-5.1), and Town of Queensbury (Town of Queensbury Tax Map No. 99-1-3) would be changed as follows: A. Tax Map No. 98-1-5.2 - from Plaza Commercial - 1 Acre to Enclosed Shopping Center -25 Acres; B. Tax Map No. 98-1-5.1 - from Highway Commercial 1 Acre to Enclosed Shopping Center - 25 Acres; C. Tax Map No. 99-1-3 - from Parkland/Recreational - 42 Acres to Enclosed Shopping Center -25 Acres. WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury may, from time to time, pursuant to Section 265 of the Town Law of the State of New York, amend, supplement, change, modify or repeal the Zoning Ordinance by Ordinance, and WHEREAS, in order to so amend, supplement, change, modify or repeal the Ordinance, it is necessary to hold a public hearing prior to adopting said proposed amendment, and WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury held a Public Hearing on said proposed change of zone, and amendments to said Zo ing Ordinance, and WHEREAS, at the time of said Public Hearing it was brought to the attention of the Town Board that one parcel and a portion of another parcel were not referred to as being changed to an Enclosed Mall Zone as previously requested by the Developer, and that such parcels are identified as a portion of 98-1-2 and 98-5-4.1 as shown on a proposed Zoning Map identified as RM-2 and entitled Proposed Zoning Map produced by Engineers or Surveyors for the Developer and further that an error appeared in that a portion of tax map number 98-1-5.1 is the parcel that is being rezoned as opposed to the entire parcel as would be indicated in the previous resolution and as would be indicated by the advertisement, and further that Tax Map Number 99-1-3 is in fact Zoned Highway Commercial and not Parkland/Recreational as indicated in the advertisement and previous resolution and further that the previous resolution and advertisement indicated that the allowable use in the ESC Zone would be up to 12,000 sq ft. of gross floor area for a single story building and 15,000 sq. ft. for a multistory story buildings and that said description should have read up to 12,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area per acre for single story buildings and 15,000 sq. ft. per acre for multiple story buildings with such clarifications to have been inserted in that section of the revision proposed for Section 4.020-P Enclosed Shopping Center ESC-25A, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury proposes the following ordinance which would amend the Zoning Ordinance as more specifically referred to here and above and as follows: ORDINANCE NO. AMENDING TOWN OF QUEENSBURY ZONING ORDINANCE The Ordinance amends Sections 2.020, 4.010,7.071, 7.072, 7.073 of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, as amended. Enactment of the Ordinance is pursuant to Article 11 of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance and Article 16 of the Town Law of the State of New York, and Article 3 of the Zoning Ordinance is hereby amended such that certain property described herein is rezoned as indicated. - BE IT ENACTED BY THE TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY, THAT: 1. Article 2 of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, Section 2.020, entitled "Definitions" is hereby amended to include: ENCLOSED SHOPPING CENTER—a group of architecturally unified commercial establishments built on a site which is planned, constructed and managed as a complete operating unit that is enclosed and roofed, with access to tenant areas generally oriented toward interior corridors. GROSS LEASABLE AREA (GLA)--the total floor area designed for tenant occupancy and exclusive use, expressed in square feet and measured from the center line of joint partitions and from the inside faces of exterior walls, provided, however, that gross leasable area shall not include common mall area, exit corridors, service corridors, storage/maintenance areas, elevators, escalators, or other common or public places. To be inserted in correct alphabetical listing; numbers of current definitions shall be adjusted accordingly. II. Article 4 of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance A). Section 4.010, entitled "Zoning Districts", is hereby amended as follows: P ESC - 25 Enclosed Shopping Center 25 Acres B). Section 4.020 -p ENCLOSED SHOPPING CENTER ESC-25A Maximum Density: At least twenty-five (25) acres will be required to establish any allowable use in a ESC Zone, up to 12,000 square feet of gross floor area per acre for single story buildings and 15,000 square feet of gross floor area per acre for 'tnultistory buildings. An additional 500 s.f. of land area will be required for each 150 gross floor leasable area, for single-story buildings and 200 s.f. or proportion thereof for multistory buildings. Purpose: Enclosed Shopping Centers (ESC) are those areas where development exists or is anticipated. _ � O r Access points are defined in an effort to create coherent and safe traffic patterns, efficient loading and unloading, aesthetically pleasing shopping environment and safe pedestrian circulation. MINIMUM LOT SIZE MINIMUM MAXIMUM PERCENT MAXIMUM HEIGHT Area in Width YARD SETBACKS* OF LOT TO OF BUILDING Acres in Feet Front Side Rear BE PERMEABLE (Feet) 25 25 800 50 30 30 20% 50 *A 50 ft. buffer zone shall be required adjoining residential and industrial zones. PERMITTED USES ACCESSORY USES Enclosed Shopping Center 1. Loading Facility 2. Parking Facility 3. Ancillary Free Standing 4. Signs as per Queensbury Sign Ordinance SITE PLAN REVIEW All uses in ESC Zones will be subject to Site Plan Review. III. Paragraph 1 of Article 7 of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, Section 7.071 entitled "Off-Street Parking Design", is hereby amended as follows: Off-street parking space shall be required for all buildings constructed, altered, extended and engaged in use after the effective date of this Ordinance. Each off-street space for residential and commercial uses (except enclosed shopping centers) shall consist of at least two hundred (200) square feet and shall be at least ten (10) feet wide by twenty (20) feet long. Each off-street space for enclosed shopping centers and industrial uses shall consist of at least one hundred eighty (180) square feet and shall be at least nine (9) feet wide and twenty (20) feet long. Each parking space shall be reached by an access driveway at least twenty (20) feet clear in width. In addition, space necessary for aisles, maneuvering, safe pedestrian walkways and drives shall be provided. Parking requirements are specified in Section 7.072. IV. Article 7 of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, Section 7.071, entitled "Off-Street Parking Design", is hereby amended as follows: C. Except for an enclosed shopping center, any parking lot or parking area that will contain more than one hundred (100) cars shall be effectively divided by planted divider strips planted with trees fixed in place so as to effectively divide each parking area of one hundred (100) cars from another driveway and parking area for the purpose of insuring safety of vehicles moving within the entire parking area and to control speed. An enclosed shopping center shall provide planted parking dividers consistent with the above criteria, but the maximum number of cars within any divided parking area shall not exceed one hundred-fifty (150) cars. V. Article 7 of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, Section 7.072, entitled "Off Street Parking Schedule", is hereby amended as follows: p) Enclosed shopping center: Notwithstanding any other provision in this Ordinance, enclosed shopping centers shall provide off-street parking spaces in accordance with the following standards: (i) Each parking space shall comply with the dimensional requirements set forth in Section 7.071. (ii) The required number of off-street parking spaces shall be calculated as follows: aa) for enclosed shopping centers greater than four hundred thousand (400,000) square feet CLA, all parking on the site will be based on five (5.0) spaces per one thousand (1,000) square feet of GLA VI. Article 7 of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, Section 7.073, entitled "Off-Street Loading" is hereby amended as follows: A) Except as provided in paragraph (B) below, at least one (1) off-street loading space shall be provided for each commercial or industrial establishment hereafter erected or substantially altered to have a gross floor area in excess of five thousand (5,000) square rQ i -- feet, computed as described below. Space for off-street loading shall be in addition to space for off-street parking. B) An enclosed shopping center shall provide three (3) off-street loading spaces for each department store tenant, plus such additional, if any, centralized loading spaces as may be reasonably necessary to service interior mall tenants, taking into consideration interior service corridors, traffic and parking patterns, and architectural design. C) Each off-street loading space shall be subject to the following minimum requirements: 1). Each berth shall be not less than twelve (12) feet wide, forty (40) feet long and, when covered, fourteen (14) feet in height. 2.) Off-street loading space (or spaces) located within fifty (50) feet of a residential property shall be shielded by wall, fencing, or other suitable material which shall serve to screen noise and uncontrolled entrance. VII. The following parcels of land shall be rezoned to the Enclosed Shopping Center (ESC-25A) Zone: A. Tax Map No. 98-1-5.1 only a portion of that as indicated on the map* B. Tax Map No. 98-1-5.2; and C. Tax Map No. 98-1-3; and D. Tax Map No. 98-1-2; only a portion of that would be added to that section as indicated on the map*, and E. Tax Map No. 98-1-5- 4. 1 * RM-2 entitled Proposed Zoning Map produced by Engineers or Surveyors for the developers. VIII. The Town Zoning Map of the Town of Queensbury, adopted pursuant to Article 3 of the Town of Queensbury.. Zoning Ordinance, shall be amended to include the Enclosed Shopping Center (ESC-25A) Zone. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury shall hold a further public hearing, at which time all parties in interest and citizens shall have an opportunity to be heard, upon and in reference to the proposed amendment, supplement, change and/or modification to the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance which was adopted on October 1, 1988, and as amended herein, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that said public hearing shall be held on December 17, 1990 at 7:30 P.M. in the Queensbury Activities Center, 531 Bay Road, Queensbury, Warren County, New York and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Town Clerk of the Town of Queensbury is hereby authorized and directed to give 10 days notice of said further public hearing by publishing a notice in a form to be approved by the Town Attorney for purposes of publication in an official newspaper of the Town and by posting on the Town bulletin Board outside the Clerk's Office said notice, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Town Attorney of the Town of Queensbury is hereby authorized and directed to give written notice of the proposed revision to the amendment to the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Queensbury, and a copy of this resolution and written notice previously described to be in a form approved by the Town Attorney, to be delivered 10 days prior to the following as may be necessary: Warren County, by service upon the Clerk of the Board _ of Supervisors, City of Glens Falls, by service upon the City Clerk, and such other communities or agencies that it is necessary to give written notice to pursuant to Section 265 of the Town Law of the State of New York, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Planning Department of the Town of Queensbury is hereby authorized and directed to give notice of said proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, as maybe necessary and a copy of this resolution to the Warren County Planning Agency and the Town of Queensbury Planning Board for their review in accordance with the laws of the State of New York and Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Queensbury, and that copies of the Ordinance, this resolution and copies of the notices be given to said agencies unless said agencies already have copies of the same and be it further RESOLVED, that the Town Attorney when drafting the proposed notice of Public Hearing shall indicate therein that the Public Hearing in held for purposes of considering the entire proposal as well as the proposed amendments made in the proposal this evening. Duly adopted this 3rd day of December, 1990 by the following vote: Ayes: Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos Noes: None — Absent: Mr. Kurosaka DISCUSSION BEFORE VOTE SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Okay, we've agreed to keep the hearing open. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Steve, before you close the hearing tonight I did want to make a couple of other comments. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Okay, we're still open. The Attorney had drafted a resolution that seems to incorporate, while we're thinking about it, I'll ask the Attorney for Aviation Mall, are you satisfied that that included everything? MR. STEWART-I think he did a beautiful job on very short notice and I think it covers everything to our liking. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Is this Board happy with what you've heard? Okay do we have someone to introduce the resolution that was just read to us? Introduced and seconded, vote taken. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Okay 2 weeks from tonight we'll continue this. Betty you wanted to say something else this evening? COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Yes, I just wanted to make some comments in this response report for review comments of the Town of Queensbury. First a couple of questions. Do our engineers have a copy of this and does our Planning Department have a copy of this? SUPERVISOR BORGOS-I see Mr. Gagliano saying yes. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I just wanted to make some comments about your responses and I'm going to read some. No parking fire lane signs reserves significant areas around the buildings for access for fire fighting equipment. Further the mall store leases require that all loading and unloading for all mall shop delivery shall be carried out before or after operating hours. This lease provision is reinforced prior to peak business season by an internal memorandum from mall management to control loading activities. Page 8, further the mall store leases require that all loading and unloading for all mall shop deliveries shall be carried out before or after operating hours. This lease provision is reinforced prior to peak business season by an internal memorandum from mall management to control loading activities. I just want to add to what I said the other night that loading and unloading is going on during business hours. There was one I told you about, a restaurant, one of the fast food ones loading and unloading in the fire lane. The other day, I'm going so I notice all of this stuff now when I drive through there and on the side towards Aviation Road, 2 trucks and 1 car and I realize the car was there illegally, but 2 trucks that were there in the fire lane doing there loading and unloading. So I mean the fire lane is not being kept open. I don't think you've answered the problem but just your loading docks, that you are going to have to take some other methods to service those small interiors stores and your exterior stores that do not have the loading docks. Then I wanted to say, on page 10, item 5, temporary noise increases will be kept to a minimum during construction and will be limited to normal day time working hours. What do you consider normal day time working hours? MR. MEYERS-Are you asking me? COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Yes, that's a question. MR. MEYERS-I would have to define that, obviously if that's what your interested in. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I would be very interested because I know what some construction companies consider normal daytime hours and I don't think its what the neighbors would consider. Then on page 13, item 4, you talk about sand is the predominant material utilities to provide safe lot conditions, sand mixed with the road salt and so on and so forth. Then you go on to say, these procedures represent no change from the current practices, which I agree with. but I think you will also hove to say that because of the expansion you will be using larger quantities of those some materials, which you did not state. You kind of leave the imprints that there wont be any difference of what is going on today and I don't think that's quite true. That ends my comments for now Steve. OLD BUSINESS UNSAFE STRUCTURE - TOOMEY PROPERTY DAVE HA TIN, DIRECTOR OF BUILDING & CODES-Updated the Board stating that the property has been cleaned up and they have submitted a variance for the steel structure still standing. From what I con gother, their intentions are to turn that into a deck for family use. Not everything that the Board wanted addressed, has been addressed but I think there's o good 80 to 85 percent completion right now. COUNCILMAN MONA HA N-Questioned whether they had token more of the steel down? MR. HA TIN-They said they did but I did not notice any change. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-So you are satisfied with the progress? MR. HA TIN-Yes I think it has progressed, better than what we got over the lost 2 years. SUPERVISOR B.ORGOS-If they don't get their variance, then everything comes out? MR. HA TIN-Yes. CR OSSMA N PR OPER T Y MR. HA TIN-Noted that this was the house located on Connecticut Avenue where the Board had ordered the house.closed until it was renovated inside bringing up to somewhat o standard of living. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-The owner is living in a tent? MR. HATIN-Yes, he lives in a tent in the backyard. According to Dave Barnes, who was helping him out, said he has not done anymore to the inside in the last month and I hove noticed no activity since he started to insulate. The other report that we've got from Mr. Barnes is that he's living in there during the night time hours and is sneaking out before I con get there in the morning. I have a hard time saying that the structure is beyond repair, it is repairable but in the some token I don't want a gentleman sleeping and living in a house that's not fit for human use. DISCUSSION HELD, _ _-- _ __-- ---.-- ... ..__._ :.-- •-•-- -Mr. Hotin continue to follow and give us some information in the near future. UNSAFE STRUCTURE - MCDONALD ATTORNEY DUSEK-Noted that the person was notified and we had gone through all the proceedings and we operated on the basis of notifying one of the heirs, this is a state matter. I went bock though our ordinance and then the Town law, because whenever you tear down somebody's property or when you go in and do something of this nature, I think you have to be extremely careful. After reviewing, I found one section of the law that says notify any heir and that's sufficient but when I dropped down a couple of paragraphs, I saw another section where it seems to soy where you hove to notify everybody who has a potential interest in this. So in my opinion we should go bock through and notify all the other heirs, which there is 9 of them. Town Board agreed to the Attorney's recommendation and the following resolution was approved. RESOLUTION DECLARING UNSAFE STRUC1TURE RESOLUTION NO. 679, 1990,Introduced by Mr. Ronald Montesi who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mrs. Marilyn Potenzo: WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury previously adopted Resolution No. 302, 1990, which declared that certain property, hearing Tax Map No. 127-4-9, and the address of 149 Indiana A venue, was dangerous and unsafe to the general public, and WHEREAS, said Resolution also directed that a Notice, pursuant to Local Low No. 3, 1983, be served upon the Owner of the property and the Attorney for the Estate of said Owner, which Notice also stated the time and place a hearing would be held on this matter before the Town Board, and WHEREAS, said hearing was held on August 20, 1990, wherein no one representing the Owner attended, and WHEREAS, before ordering demolition of the structure on the property, the Town Board has been advised by the Town Attorney, Paul B. Dusek, that all Heirs of the Estate of the Owner should be served with the aforementioned Notice and be given on opportunity to be present at a hearing on this matter, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that o new Notice, pursuant to Local Low No. 3, 1983, shall be served upon the Attorney for the Estate and all known Heirs of the Owner, which Notice shall state the particulars in which the building is unsafe, outlining the time in which the building is to be made safe, and a statement indicating that the repair, securing or removal of the building shall commence within 30 days of service of notice and shall be completed within 60 days, and also providing for a dote, time and place for a hearing before the Board, and BE IT FURTHER RESOL VED, that said hearing shall be held on the 21st of January, 1991. Duly adopted this 3rd day of December, 1990, by the following vote: A YES: Mrs. Potenzo, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos NOES: None ABSENT:Mr. Kurosoka" UNSAFE STRUCTURE - MAIN STREET- WEST GLENS FALLS ATTORNEY DUSEK-Noted that Garfield Raymond who represents the owner on this property contacted me today and indicated that he would be willing to consent to an order of this Board _ directing that the premises be torn down. Town Board agreed to the following resolution: RESOLUTION REGARDING DEMOLISH OF UNSAFE STRUCTURE, 69 MAIN STREET RESOLUTION NO. 680, 1990, Introduced by Mr. Ronald Montesi who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mrs. Marilyn Potenzo: WHEREAS, Garfield Raymond who represents Vincent Crocitto, owner of the property at 69 Main Street, tax mop number 130-1-25, indicated that he would be willing to consent to an order of this Board directing that the premises be demolished, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby orders that the portion of the building of 69 Main Street, tax mop number 130-1-25 be demolished and removed from the site, with the work to commence within 30 days from this evening and to be completed within 60 days of this evening, and in the event the owner fails to complete the demolition, the Town Board will order that the demolition be performed and contracted out, the cost to be borned by the tax payer by an assessment, to be place on his tax rolls and/or collected in a course of a legal action against the,owner, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the owner in the interim before such time as the building is completely demolished and removed from the site shall fence off\the site at the greatest distance possible to ovoid people coming near the building and also shall continuously keep the snow off the roof of the building, and BE IT FURTHER S RESOLVED, that the utilities be disconnected immediately by order of the Building Inspector. Duly adopted this 3rd day of December, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos NOES: None ABSENT:Mr. Kurosoko OPEN FORUM Discussion held regarding Building and Codes purchase of their radio system with the alternative of the tower rather than the original proposal of the antenna on the roof, which was not part of the original contract, at an additional cost. DAVE KENNY-Read the following letter into the record Town Board members, with the current situation of Aviation Mall in mind, another problem has arisen with the new zoning regulations. I would strongly encourage the Town Board to implement a new Advisory Committee to be continually reviewing and updating our existing rules and regulations. We can see that we already are in need of amendments to existing zoning requirements that went into effect not too long ago. The members of the post Advisory Committee did their best to address the problems of the Town at that time but with the changing times, things that were not considered then are now becoming areas of concern. With the implementation of a new Advisory Committee to continually review these problems, we we'll continue the growth of Queensbury in an orderly fashion and have it remain a beautiful place to live and work. With this in mind, it will hopefully, there will never be the need of another moratorium. SUPERVISOR BOR GOS-1 think what the Board is in the .process of doing now, we've already had some workshops, in revising the zoning ordinance, in addressing specific concerns from a variety of constituencies which would include the Planning Board, the Zoning Board, the Planning Department, Businessman Association, Director of Building and Code Enforcement, the Attorney's office, my office and all the members of the Town Board plus members of the public that have written to us. I think we've already got our sources of input, really a citizens advisory committee if you will although it's not constituted as such. i personally feel that the best way to get this done, is for people to continue to correspond with us. If we set up another structure, another committee, another set of meetings, I think we're going to bog down the system. COUNCILMAN MONA HA N-Concerned with Highway Commercial and would like to see more review in this zone, possibly best for an advisory committee. Discussion held and agreed to consider recommendation. Supervisor Borgos noted for the record that we ore in no way attempting to restrict public comment or input, that we do receive public comment from every conceivable place. MIKE O'CONNOR-Suggested earlier to look at making all parking spots in a commercial areas throughout the Town, 9 feet in width. Made suggestions to amend proposed ordinance in regards to parking. Also suggested to Board to look into regulation of personal watercraft on the small lakes that ore fully within the jurisdiction of the Town as I believe the Lake George Park Commission is looking at, the restriction of those personal watercraft on the body of Lake George. Would like to know if there's been any progress made on that? SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Believe it's been referred to the Planning Department but will check. RESOLUTIONS RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CHANGE ORDER NUMBER 2, CONSTRUCTION OF THE GENERATOR BUILDING RESOLUTION NO. 681, 1990, Introduced by Ronald Montesi who moved for its adoption, seconded by Marilyn Potenza. RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby accepts Change Order Number 2, Wallace 1. Johnson, Inc., in the amount of $6,330, related to the construction of the Generator Building at the Water Treatment Plant, and 1 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Supervisor is hereby authorized to sign such, provided that it is in the form approved by the Town Attorney. 'P Duly adopted this 3rd day of December, 1990, by the following vote: Ayes: Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos Noes: None Absent: Mr. Kurosoko RESOLUTION DIRECTING SUPERVISOR TO NOTIFY LAKE GEORGE PARK COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 682, 1990, Introduced by Marilyn Potenzo who moved for its adoption, seconded by Betty Monahan. RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby directs the Supervisor of the Town of Queensbury, Stephen Borgos to notify the Lake George Park Commission that the Town of Queensbury plans to adopt and enforce it's own Storm Water Regulations within eighteen months of the effective date of the Lake George Park Commission's Storm Water Regulations. Duly adopted this 3rd day of December, 1990, by the following vote: Ayes: Mrs. Potenzo, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos Noes: None Absent: Mr. Kurosoko RESOLUTION REGARDING UTILIZATION OF CONTRACT NO. 7, LOW PRESSURE PUMPING SYSTEMS FOR THE QUAKER ROAD CENTRAL QUEENSBUR Y SEWER DISTRICT RESOLUTION NO. 683, 1990, Introduced by Ronald Montesi who moved for its adoption, seconded by Morily Potenza. RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby authorizes the Waste Water Deportment to begin making the connections to the grinder pump units from Contract Number 7 of the Quaker Road Central Queensbury Sewer District, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this specifically not indicate that we are at the point of substantial completion of this project. Duly adopted this 3rd day of December, 1990, by the following vote: Ayes: Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos Noes: None Absent: Mr. Kurosaka RESOLUTION APPROVING RENTAL OF EQUIPMENT IN HIGHWAY DEPT. RESOLUTION NO. 684, 1990 Introduced by Ronald Montesi who moved for its adoption, seconded by Marilyn Potenza. WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury Highway Superintendent, has determined a need for the rental of a D6 LGP Machine (Bulldozer) to expedite the excavation at Hovey Pond, and WHEREAS, the Caterpillar Dealer of Albany hod offered to provide said machine for the amount of$8,000.00 per month, and WHEREAS, the Town Highway Superintendent anticipates that his department will need a machine for a period of one month, and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 143 of the Town Highway Law of the State of X&w- York, it is necessary for the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury to review and appro adithesnount to be paid for the rental of said machine, 1 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby approves of the Town Highway Superintendent renting the D6 LGP Machine, for an amount not to exceed $8,000.00 3g�1 per month, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the rental shall be paid for from the Town of Queensbury Highway Deportment Rental Account. Duly adopted this 3rd day of December, 1990, by the following vote: Ayes: Mrs. Potenzo, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos Noes: None Absent: Mr. Kurosoko RESOLUTION APPROVING LICENSE AUTHORIZING STORAGE OF EXCAVATED MATERIAL RESOLUTION NO. 685, 1990, Introduced by Ronald Montesi who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Borgos. WHEREAS, there has been presented to the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury a proposed Agreement, the some being titled License, and this authorizes the Town of Queensbury to place and store fill, temporarily, upon property located behind Miller Hill Moll, Route 9, Queensbury, and WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is desirous of acknowledging and agreeing to the terms and conditions of the aforesaid license, and WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury acknowledges Councilwoman Potenza's disclosure of an interest in said Agreement and further notes that the Agreement does not involve any consideration be paid to Councilwoman Potenza, and WHEREAS, the Town Attorney for the Town of Queensbury has reviewed the Agreement and rendered an opinion concerning the some, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby approves and acknowledges and hereby agrees to be bound by the conditions set forth in the Agreement and hereby further authorizes the Town Supervisor to execute the some on behalf of the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury. Duly adopted this 3rd day of December, 1990, by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos Noes: None Absent: Mr. Kurosaka Abstain: Mrs. Potenza RESOLUTION ADOPTING DETERMINATION OF NON SIGNIFICANCE OF ROAD DEDICATION RESOLUTION NO. 686, 1990, Introduced by Marilyn Potenzo who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Borgos. WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is considering the acceptance of Morningside Circle in the Heatherbrook Subdivision offered for dedication by Peter Imperiole, and WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is duly qualified to act as lead agency with respect to compliance with SEQRA which requires environmental review of certain actions undertaken by local governments, and WHEREAS, the proposed action is on unlisted action pursuant to the Rules and Regulations of the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board, after considering the action proposed herein, reviewing the Environmental Assessment Form, reviewing the criteria contained in Section 617.11, and thoroughly analyzing the project with respect to potential environmental concerns, determines that the action will not hove a significant effect on the environment, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOL VED, that the Town Board hereby finds that the proposed responses inserted in Port 11 of the said Environmental Assessment Form ore satisfactory and approved, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Supervisor is hereby authorized and directed to complete and execute Part 111 of the said Environmental Assessment Form and to check the box thereon indicating that the proposed action will not result in any significant adverse impacts, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the annexed Negative Declaration is hereby approved and the Town Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to file the some in accordance with the provisions of the general regulations of the Department of Environmental Conservation. Duly adopted this 3rd day of December, 1990, by the following vote: Ayes: Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos Noes: None Absent: Mr. Kurosoko RESOLUTION ACCEPTING DEDICATION OF MORNINGSIDE CIRCLE � - � Y C?o� RESOLUTION NO. 687, 1990, Introduced by Marilyn Po ten zo who moved for its odoption, seconded by Ronald Montesi. WHEREAS, Peter Imperiole has offered a deed, road crossing easement, drainage easement and other documents to dedicate to the Town of Queensbury, Morningside Circle, which is more particularly shown on the survey map presented at this meeting and described in the original deed and easements being presented to this meeting, and WHEREAS, Paul H. Naylor, Superintendent of Highways of the Town of Queensbury has advised j that he has reviewed inspection reports concerning the construction of and specifications of — the said rood proposed to be dedicated to the Town of Queensbury and he has raised no objection to acceptance of the some, and WHEREAS, Thomas K. Flaherty, Superintendent of Water of the Town of Queensbury, has advised that he has mode on inspection of water mains and appurtenances along said rood proposed for dedication and finds that the installation is in accordance with the requirements of the Town of Queensbury Water Department, and that said installation is approved, and WHEREAS, the form of the deed, and easements, the other required documents, and title to the road offered for dedication hove been reviewed and approved by Karla M. Corpus, Deputy Town Attorney for the Town of Queensbury, and WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury has considered the environmental effects of the proposed action by previous resolution and issued a negative declaration pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the aforementioned deed and other documents presented for dedication of the said rood be and the some are hereby accepted and approved and the Town Supervisor is hereby authorized to execute, sign, and affix the Town Seal to any and all documents necessary to complete the dedication, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED,, that the Town Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to cause said d deed and easements to be recorded in the Warren CounO Clerk's Office, otter which said documents shall be properly filed and maintained in the Office of the Town Clerk of the Town of Queensbury, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the road be hereby added to the official inventory of Town Highways, to be described as follows: Road Number: 376 Description: In a southeast direction from Sherman Island Road. Name: Morningside Circle Feet: 268.58 (By Resolution No. 706, 1990 mileage shall now read 612.671) Duly adopted this 3rd day of December, 1990, by the following vote: Ayes: Mrs. Potenzo, Mr. Montesi, Mr. Borgos Noes: Mrs. Monahan Absent: Mr. Kurosaka Discussion before vote: COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Noted concern with the liability of running our roads under high tension wires and the possible exposure of radiation that's involved that researchers are now finding. SUPERVISOR BOR COS-Suggested that we request our Planning Deportment to advise the Planning Board that in the future when looking at projects, they should concern themselves with that. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CORRECTION OF AN ERROR IN THE CONVEYANCE OF A PORTION OF SEA GE ROAD RESOLUTION NO. 688, 1990, Introduced by Ronald Montesi who moved for its adoption, seconded by Marilyn Potenza. WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury previously adopted Resolution No. 544, dated September 24, 1990, authorizing the sale of a portion of Seage Road to Charles R. Wood, and WHEREAS, it has come to the attention of the Town Attorney's Office that there exists an error in the original Deed into the Town of Queensbury, as well as the Petition for Discontinuance of said rood, whereby these documents contain an incorrect description of the subject property, and WHEREAS, said error also exists in the executed and recorded Deed given by the Town of Queensbury to Charles R. Wood, and WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is desirous of correcting said error, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that, pursuant to the Town Law of the State of New York, Section 64(2), the Town Supervisor is hereby authorized to execute and place the seal of the Town of Queensbury on any and all documents necessary to correct the error in the deed conveying a portion of Seage Road to Charles R. Wood, and arrange for the filing of the documents with the Town Clerk and the Warren County Clerk's Office, as may be necessary. Duly adopted this 3rd day of December, 1990, by the following vote: Ayes: Mrs. Potenzo, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos Noes: None Absent: Mr. Kurosako RESOLUTION TO TRANSFER FUNDS RESOLUTION NO. 689, 1990, Introduced by Betty Monahan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Montesi. WHEREAS, certain departments have requested transfers to funds, and c WHEREAS, said requests hove been approved by the Town of Queensbury Accounting Office and the Chief Fiscal Officer, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the funds be transferred as listed below: CEME TER Y FROM TO AMOUNT C245 8811300 C2458811 440 $2,000.00 (Capital Construction) (Contractual) Duly adopted this 3rd day of December, 1990, by the following vote: Ayes: Mrs. Potenzo, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos . Noes: None Absent: Mr. Kurosoko RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENT OF BIDS FOR OFFICE FURNITURE/SUPPLIES FOR QUEENSBURY HIGHWAY OFFICE RESOLUTION NO. 690, 1990, Introduced by Ronald Montesi who moved for its adoption, seconded by Betty Monahan. , WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is desirous of purchasing certain office furniture/supplies for the Queensbury Highway Office, which items are more specifically identified in the proposed bid documents and specifications submitted to this meeting, and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 103 of the General Municipal Law, it is necessary to advertise for bids and award the said proposed contract to the lowest responsible bidder meeting New York State Statutory requirements, and the requirements set forth in the bid documents presented at this meeting, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOL VED, that an advertisement for bids for the said office furniture/supplies be published -_ in the official newspaper for the Town of Queensbury and that such advertisement indic� that bids will be received at the Office of the Town Clerk of the Town of Queensbury�at 6ny time until, but not later than December 14th, 1990 at 2:00 p.m., and that the bids will be publicly opened and read at 2:05 p.m. by the Town Clerk of the Town of Queensbury, and such advertisement shall indicate that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury shall hove the right, at its discretion, to reject all bids and re-advertise for new bids as provided by the laws of the State of New York, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that Miss Dorleen Dougher, Town Clerk of the Town of Queensbury is hereby authorized to open all bids received at the Office of the Town Clerk of the Town of Queensbury, of 2:05 p.m., December 14th, 1990, read the some oloud and make record of the some as is customarily done, and present the bids to the next regular or special meeting of the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury. Duly adopted this 3rd day of December, 1990, by the following vote: Ayes: Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos Noes: None Absent: Mr. Kurosoko COMMUNICA TIONS `- Letters submitted regarding Aviation Moll prop�sol - on file. RESOLUTION APPROVING AUDIT OF BILLS RESOLUTION NO. 691, 1990, Introduced by Ronald Montesi who moved for its adoption, seconded by Betty Monahan. RESOLVED, that the Audit of Bills appearing on Abstract December 3rd, 1990, numbering from 90-5866 thru 90-6110 and totaling $462,642.77 be and is hereby approved. Duly adopted this 3rd day of December, 1990, by the following vote: Ayes: Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos Noes: None Absent: Mr. Kurosoko RESOLUTION CALLING FOR EXECUTIVE SESSION RESOLUTION NO. 692, 1990, Introduced by Marilyn Potenzo who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Borgos. RESOL VED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourn from Regular Session to enter into Executive Session to discuss Potential Litigation and Attorney/Client Privilege to discuss advice from the Attorney. Duly adopted this 3rd day of December, 1990, by the following vote: Ayes: Mrs. Potenzo, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos Noes: None Absent: Mr. Kurosoko RESOLUTION CALLING FOR REGULAR SESSION RESOLUTION NO. 693, 1990, Introduced by Ronald Montesi who moved for its adoption, seconded by Marilyn Potenzo. RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourn from Executive Session to enter Regular Session of the Town Board. Duly adopted this 3rd day of December, 1990, by the following vote: Ayes: Mrs. Potenzo, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos Noes: None Absent: Mr. Kurosoko No further action was token. On motion, the meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULL Y SUBMITTED, DARLEEN M. DOUGHER TOWN CLERK TOWN OF QUEENSBUR Y 1